hItkARnI COLLeGe OF

Student nAMe:- PReetI GAutAM SOnAWAne

CLASS:- [Link].B
ROLL nO:-
SuBjeCt- COnStItutIOn OF IndIA

PROjeCt tOPIC:- ARtICLe 32

SuBMISSIOn dAte:- 25/05/2025

nAMe OF the PROFeSSOR- PROF. RAjhAnS SIR

ACknOWLedGMent
 I WAnt tO exPReSS MY GRAtItude tO MY
PRInCIPAL, PROF. RAjhAnS SIR FOR theIR
enCOuRAGeMent, InSIGhtFuL SuGGeStIOnS, And
MentORShIP. I’d ALSO LIke tO extend MY thAnkS tO
FOR GRAntInG Me thIS WOndeRFuL OPPORtunItY tO
WRIte thIS ASSIGnMent.

ALSO, I WOuLd LIke tO exPReSS MY APPReCIAtIOn

tO ALL thOSe WhO hAve SuPPORted And
COntRIButed tO the COMPLetIOn OF thIS PROjeCt.
YOuR ASSIStAnCe, GuIdAnCe, And enCOuRAGeMent
hAve Been InvALuABLe. thAnk YOu FOR BeInG A
PARt OF thIS PROjeCt.
LAStLY, I WAnt tO thAnk MY FAMILY & FRIendS
FOR theIR undeRStAndInG And SuPPORt duRInG
thIS ASSIGnMent.

PReetI GAutAM SOnAWAne

Index

1. Introduction

2. Constitutional Provisions

3. Nature and Scope of Article 32

4. Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

o Types of Writs

5. Significance of Article 32

6. Comparison with Article 226

7. Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Judgments

o Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)

o A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

o Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

o S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)

o Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)

o Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1996)

8. Recent Supreme Court Judgments on Article 32

o Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020)

o Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India (2022)

o Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2023)

9. Limitations and Criticism

[Link]

[Link] and References

1. Introduction

Article 32 of the Constitution of India provides the right to constitutional

remedies and has been rightly termed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the "heart and
soul" of the Constitution. This Article empowers individuals to approach the
Supreme Court directly in case of violation of their fundamental rights. It is a
cornerstone of India's commitment to the rule of law and the protection of civil
liberties.

2. Constitutional Provisions

Article 32 is found in Part III of the Constitution and consists of four clauses:

1. The right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental

rights.

2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or writs.

3. Parliament may empower other courts to exercise similar jurisdiction.

4. This right shall not be suspended except as provided by the Constitution.

3. Nature and Scope of Article 32

Nature of Article 32

Article 32 is unique in that it is both a fundamental right and a remedial right.

This dual character makes it one of the most powerful provisions in the
Constitution. Unlike other fundamental rights, the right to move the Supreme
Court itself is protected as a fundamental right under Article 32. It reflects the
framers' intent to provide an effective safeguard against the violation of rights
by the state or its instrumentalities.

The nature of Article 32 is such that it offers a direct and speedy remedy to an
aggrieved individual. It bypasses the normal judicial hierarchy, allowing citizens
to approach the Supreme Court directly. This direct access underlines the
importance the Constitution places on the enforcement of rights.

Scope of Article 32

The scope of Article 32 is broad and dynamic. The Supreme Court, under this
provision, has the power to issue five types of writs—habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto—to enforce
fundamental rights. This wide writ jurisdiction allows the Court to act not only
as a protector but also as a guarantor of individual freedoms.

Over the years, the scope of Article 32 has been expanded significantly through
judicial interpretation. The development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
has allowed even those who are not directly affected to approach the Supreme
Court on behalf of those who are unable to do so. This progressive approach has
empowered marginalized sections of society and has been instrumental in social
justice movements.

The Court has also interpreted Article 32 to enforce not only the text but also
the spirit of fundamental rights. For example, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21
(Right to Life and Personal Liberty), thereby increasing the scope of Article 32
to cover violations that were previously considered outside its purview.
4. Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Under Article 32, the Supreme Court (and under Article 226, the High
Courts) can issue five types of writs for the enforcement of fundamental
rights. These writs are borrowed from English law and serve as powerful
tools to ensure justice and prevent arbitrary exercise of power by public
authorities.

1. Habeas Corpus

• Meaning: "To have the body"

Purpose: This writ is issued to produce a person who is detained or
imprisoned unlawfully. It is used to safeguard individual liberty
against arbitrary detention.

Key Features:

• Can be filed by the detainee or by someone on their behalf.

• Can be issued against state as well as private individuals (in case of

illegal custody).

• Landmark Case:
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
The Supreme Court held that a person in prison does not lose their
fundamental rights. It issued habeas corpus to prevent custodial
torture and emphasized human rights even within prisons.

2. Mandamus

• Meaning: "We command"

Purpose: This writ is issued to direct a public official or authority to
perform a legal duty that they have failed or refused to perform.

• Key Features:
 • Issued against public authorities.

• Cannot be issued against a private individual.

• Requires a legal duty based on statute or law.

• Landmark Case:
State of West Bengal v. Nuruddin (1998)
The court held that Mandamus can be issued to compel the
government to follow the rule of law and act according to its
statutory duty.

3. Prohibition

• Meaning: "To forbid"

Purpose: Issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to stop
it from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to the law.

• Key Features:

• Preventive in nature.

• Issued only to judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.

• Landmark Case:
East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs (1962)
The Supreme Court held that when a tribunal acts outside its
jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition can be issued to restrain it from
continuing further proceedings.

4. Certiorari

• Meaning: "To be certified"

Purpose: This writ is issued to quash the order of a lower court or
tribunal which is passed without or in excess of jurisdiction, or in
violation of natural justice.
 • Key Features:

• Curative in nature (unlike prohibition which is preventive).

• Issued after the order has been passed.

• Can be issued to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.

• Landmark Case:
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (1959)
The Supreme Court quashed an order because the authority that
passed it had also participated in the inquiry—violating the principle
of natural justice. Certiorari was issued.

5. Quo Warranto

Meaning: "By what authority"

Purpose: This writ is issued to challenge the legality of a person
holding a public office. It requires the person to show under what
authority they hold the office.

• Key Features:

• Prevents unauthorized or illegal occupation of public offices.

• Issued only for public offices created by law or the Constitution.

• Landmark Case:
University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao (1964)
The Supreme Court explained the scope of quo warranto and held
that a person holding a public post in violation of statutory rules can
be removed through this writ.
5. Significance of Article 32

• It acts as a check on the state’s power.

• Protects individuals from the arbitrary actions of the state.

• Forms the backbone of Indian judicial activism.

6. Comparison with Article 226

Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution are two powerful
provisions that provide remedies for the enforcement of rights. While both
articles empower courts to issue writs, their nature, scope, and application differ
significantly. Article 32 is enshrined in Part III of the Constitution and is itself a
fundamental right. It guarantees the right to constitutional remedies and allows
individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court in case of violation of their
fundamental rights. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously called Article 32 the “heart
and soul” of the Constitution because it serves as the primary instrument for the
protection of fundamental rights. On the other hand, Article 226 is found in Part
V of the Constitution and confers power on High Courts to issue writs not only
for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for any other legal rights.
Thus, Article 226 has a broader scope than Article 32. While Article 32 can be
invoked only when a fundamental right is infringed, Article 226 can be used for
redressal even when statutory or legal rights are violated, making it a more
versatile remedy.

Another key distinction lies in the nature of the right. Article 32 is a guaranteed
fundamental right and therefore the Supreme Court is bound to entertain a
petition under it if a case of fundamental rights violation is made out. The right
to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot be refused, making it a
constitutional obligation on the Court to ensure justice. Conversely, Article 226
is a discretionary power vested in the High Courts. Even if there is a violation of
rights, the High Court may choose not to exercise its jurisdiction under Article
226, especially if there is an alternative remedy available or if the case lacks
sufficient merit. Thus, while Article 32 provides a guaranteed and direct access
to justice at the apex level, Article 226 serves as a more flexible and regionally
accessible remedy.

The jurisdictional reach of these articles also varies. Article 32 provides

nationwide jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, allowing it to entertain petitions
from any part of the country. In contrast, Article 226 gives High Courts the
power to issue writs only within their respective territorial jurisdictions. This
makes High Courts more locally accessible to citizens and helps in
decentralizing the process of justice delivery. However, this also means that the
relief granted under Article 226 may be confined to the territorial limits of a
specific High Court, whereas the orders of the Supreme Court under Article 32
apply across the country.

Moreover, while both Articles empower courts to issue the five traditional
writs—habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto—
the grounds and situations for their issuance can differ. Article 32 deals strictly
with fundamental rights, so writs issued under it must relate to their
enforcement. Article 226 allows writs for a broader range of matters, including
violations of statutory duties, administrative actions, and breaches of natural
justice, thereby extending judicial review to a larger spectrum of issues. During
a national emergency, the operation of Article 32 can be suspended as per
Article 359, meaning citizens cannot approach the Supreme Court for
enforcement of most fundamental rights during such a period. However, Article
226 is not explicitly suspended during an emergency, which means High Courts
may still entertain writ petitions depending on the specific circumstances.
In judicial practice, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that litigants
should first approach the High Courts under Article 226 unless the case involves
grave injustice, national importance, or urgent matters of constitutional
interpretation. This reinforces the principle of judicial federalism and avoids
overburdening the Supreme Court. In conclusion, while both Article 32 and
Article 226 are essential tools for the enforcement of rights, Article 32 acts as a
sentinel for fundamental rights and offers a direct approach to the apex court,
whereas Article 226 is a more comprehensive and flexible remedy available
through the High Courts for both fundamental and other legal rights, making
both provisions cornerstones of India’s constitutional democracy

7. Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Judgments

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): Affirmed that the Supreme

Court can be approached directly under Article 32 for any violation of
fundamental rights.

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Early interpretation of Article

32 in context of preventive detention.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the scope of

Article 21 and reinforced the efficacy of Article 32.

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Emphasized public interest

litigation as a tool for enforcing rights.

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): Recognized bonded

laborers' rights and used Article 32 in PIL.

• Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1996): Highlighted judicial oversight

in cases of institutional corruption.
8. Recent Supreme Court Judgments on Article 32

1. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India (2024)

Background: A group comprising former civil servants, scholars, and activists

filed a writ petition under Article 32, seeking directions to the Union
Government to cancel existing licenses and halt the issuance of new licenses for
the export of arms and military equipment to Israel during the ongoing conflict
in Gaza.

Supreme Court's Decision: The Court declined to entertain the petition,

emphasizing that it lacks jurisdiction over the conduct of a sovereign foreign
nation, in this case, Israel. The Court stated that granting the relief sought would
necessitate making findings on allegations against Israel, which is beyond its
jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court noted that decisions regarding arms export
licenses fall within the domain of the executive and involve policy
considerations, making them unsuitable for judicial intervention under Article
32.

2. Reconsideration of Death Penalty through Article 32

Background: The Supreme Court is deliberating on whether a writ petition

under Article 32 can be utilized to seek reconsideration of a confirmed death
penalty. This issue arises from a petition challenging the finality of death
sentences and seeking a review mechanism beyond the existing legal
framework.

Significance: The outcome of this deliberation could have profound

implications on the jurisprudence surrounding the death penalty in India,
potentially introducing new avenues for review and emphasizing the evolving
nature of Article 32 in addressing fundamental rights concerns.
3. Child Marriage Prohibition Case (2024)

Background: An NGO approached the Supreme Court under Article 32,

highlighting the persistent issue of child marriages in India despite the
enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The petition sought
stronger enforcement mechanisms and accountability from authorities to
prevent child marriages.

Supreme Court's Response: The Court acknowledged the gravity of the issue
and the failure of authorities to effectively implement the law. While specific
directives from the Court were not detailed in the available information, the
case underscores the use of Article 32 to address systemic social issues and
enforce fundamental rights.

4. Land Acquisition Proceedings and Article 32 (2025)

Background: In a case concerning land acquisition, the Supreme Court

examined whether it could shift or postpone the date of preliminary notification
under the Land Acquisition Act. The issue centered on the powers of the Court
under Article 32 and Article 142 to intervene in acquisition proceedings.

Supreme Court's Decision: The Court held that only in exceptional

circumstances, where acquisition proceedings are found to be illegal or infirm,
can it exercise its powers under Article 32 or Article 142 to alter the date of
preliminary notification. This decision delineates the scope of the Court's
powers in land acquisition matters and reinforces the principle that such
interventions are reserved for extraordinary situations.

5. Climate Change and Fundamental Rights (2024)

Background: In a pioneering decision, the Supreme Court recognized freedom
from the adverse effects of climate change as a fundamental right. The Court's
jurisdiction was invoked under Article 32 through a writ petition urging the
government to develop an emergency response plan for the protection and
recovery of the Great Indian Bustard, a critically endangered species.

Supreme Court's Decision: The Court acknowledged the link between

environmental degradation and fundamental rights, emphasizing the state's duty
to protect the environment and biodiversity. This judgment expands the
interpretation of Article 32 to encompass environmental concerns, highlighting
the evolving nature of fundamental rights in the context of contemporary
challenges.

9. Limitations and Criticism

• Article 32 cannot be used for enforcement of non-fundamental rights.

• It cannot be invoked during emergencies when rights are suspended

(except for Articles 20 and 21).

• Critics argue that the Supreme Court’s increasing reluctance to entertain

Article 32 petitions weakens its effectiveness.

10. Conclusion

Article 32 is a powerful instrument for the protection of fundamental rights. Its

presence ensures that the Constitution is a living document capable of defending
civil liberties against state and institutional abuse. Despite criticisms and
operational limitations, Article 32 remains a vital guardian of democratic values
in India.

11. Bibliography and References

• The Constitution of India, 1950

• M.P. Jain, "Indian Constitutional Law"

• D.D. Basu, "Commentary on the Constitution of India"

• Supreme Court Cases (SCC) and AIR reports

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

• Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC Online SC 964

• Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, 2023 SCC Online SC 184

• [Link]

• CourtBook

• SciGov API