Every Indian citizen has the right, under Article 32 of the Indian constitution, to approach the Supreme Court for a constitutional remedy if they have been deprived of a fundamental right. In addition to overseeing the administration of justice, the Supreme Court defends fundamental rights and serves as the constitution’s defender. It would be useless to grant fundamental rights without providing a way to enforce them if they are violated.
Historical Context
The Indian Constitution’s Part III (Articles 12 to 35) contains the Fundamental Rights. Article 32 provides a constitutional guarantee for certain rights. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar stated during the Constituent Assembly’s debates that it was “the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it.”
Prominent jurist and researcher H. M. Seervai said in his work H.M. Seervai’s Constitutional law of India that “it is not surprising that the Constituent Assembly found in these writs the most effective means of enforcing a fundamental right.” Seervai declared that as long as these rights are maintained and the authority they provide is unalienable, any legislation that grants them would be invalid and unconstitutional under Article 13.
Nature and Scope of Article 32
Writs are remedies of prerogative. Since Article 32 is a Fundamental Right, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over disputes about it is, in essence, obligatory rather than optional. High Courts have inherent and discretionary writ jurisdiction for several reasons. Compared to Article 226, the scope of Article 32 is narrower. Other than the fundamental rights, no other legal right may be brought before the Supreme Court. Article 32’s absence from the articles (Articles 124–147) establishing the Supreme Court’s general jurisdiction is a significant characteristic.
Types of Indian Writs
The Indian Supreme Court has extensive and unique authority. It grants five different types of writs to uphold people’s basic rights. There are five categories of writs:
-
Habeas Corpus
“To have the body of” is the definition of “Habeas Corpus” in Latin. The purpose of this writ is to protect each person’s fundamental right to liberty against wrongful detention. The Supreme Court or High Court can order someone who has arrested someone else to bring that person’s body before the court through the Habeas Corpus process.
-
Mandamus
This inscription means, “We command.” The court might utilise this writ to compel a public official who neglected or refused to carry out their duties to return to work. For the same reason, mandamuses may be issued against public officials and any other public body, business, lower court, tribunal, or government.
-
Prohibition
“To forbid” is the exact definition of “prohibition.” A higher-ranking court files a Prohibition writ against a lower-ranking court to stop the latter from encroaching onto its jurisdiction or usurping authority it does not have.
-
Certiorari
The precise translation of the writ of Certiorari is “To be certified” or “To be informed.” This writ, which instructs a subordinate court or tribunal to either rescind an order made in a case or transfer a pending case to them, is received by the court from a higher authority. It is granted because of an overabundance of jurisdiction, a deficiency in jurisdiction, or a legal mistake. It corrects judicial errors in addition to curing them.
-
Quo-Warranto
“By what authority or warrant” is the exact meaning of the writ of “Quo-Warranto.” This writ is issued by the Supreme Court or High Court to stop someone from unlawfully taking public office. The court uses this writ to investigate the validity of a person’s claim to a public office.
