Article 32 is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of all other fundamental rights enshrined in Part III. Often referred to as the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this Article provides a vital mechanism to protect citizens against arbitrary state action infringing upon their fundamental freedoms.
It is not merely a procedural right but a fundamental right in itself, ensuring that the fundamental rights are not just declarations but are legally enforceable. This makes the Supreme Court the guardian and guarantor of Fundamental Rights.
Original Text
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
Detailed Explanation
Article 32 is a crucial part of the Fundamental Rights themselves, placed within Part III of the Constitution. It makes the right to constitutional remedies a guaranteed right.
- Clause (1): This clause directly guarantees the right of any individual to move the Supreme Court if their fundamental rights are violated. The phrase “appropriate proceedings” implies that the procedure for approaching the Court should be suitable and effective for the purpose of enforcing rights. This makes the Supreme Court the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights.
- Clause (2): This clause vests the Supreme Court with the power to issue various types of writs or directions or orders to enforce the fundamental rights. The writs specifically mentioned are:
- Habeas Corpus (You may have the body): A writ issued to produce a person who has been detained or imprisoned, before the court, so that the court can check if the detention is legal or illegal. It is a remedy against arbitrary detention.
- Mandamus (We command): A writ issued by the court to a public official, public body, corporation, inferior court, or tribunal, commanding them to perform a public duty that they have refused or failed to perform. It cannot be issued against a private individual or body, the President or Governors, or against a Chief Justice acting in a judicial capacity.
- Prohibition (To forbid): A writ issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction or encroaching upon a jurisdiction it does not possess. It is preventive in nature, issued while proceedings are still pending.
- Certiorari (To be certified or to be informed): A writ issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal or quasi-judicial authority to quash an order already passed by them if it is outside their jurisdiction, or suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record, or is based on violation of principles of natural justice. It is curative in nature.
- Quo Warranto (By what authority): A writ issued to inquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office. It prevents a person from holding a public office to which he or she is not legally entitled. It can only be issued in respect of a substantive public office created by statute or the Constitution.
- Clause (3): This clause states that Parliament may, by law, empower any other court (like High Courts or even lower courts, though this power for Fundamental Rights vests primarily with High Courts under Article 226) to exercise the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under Clause (2) within their local limits. However, Parliament has not enacted any such law to empower courts other than the High Courts (which have inherent writ powers under Article 226) to issue writs specifically for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 32 jurisdiction.
- Clause (4): This clause declares that the right guaranteed by Article 32 (the right to move the Supreme Court) cannot be suspended except as otherwise provided for by the Constitution. The Constitution provides for such suspension during a Proclamation of National Emergency under Article 359, allowing the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of specific fundamental rights (except Articles 20 and 21).
Detailed Notes
- Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of rights conferred by Part III (Fundamental Rights).
- This right itself is a Fundamental Right.
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution.
- It makes the Supreme Court the guardian and guarantor of Fundamental Rights.
- The Supreme Court has the power to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
- The writs explicitly mentioned are Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, and Certiorari.
- Habeas Corpus: Issued to produce a detained person; tests legality of detention.
- Mandamus: Commands a public authority to perform a public duty. Cannot be against private individuals, President, Governors, or judges in judicial capacity.
- Prohibition: Issued by higher court to lower court/tribunal to prevent exceeding jurisdiction (preventive).
- Certiorari: Issued by higher court to lower court/tribunal/quasi-judicial authority to quash an order for jurisdictional error, error of law, or violation of natural justice (curative).
- Quo Warranto: Inquires into the legality of a person’s claim to a public office.
- The power under Article 32 can only be invoked for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, not for other legal rights (for which one would typically approach High Courts under Article 226).
- Parliament may empower other courts to issue such writs (under Clause 3), but this power is not routinely exercised.
- The right under Article 32 cannot be suspended except during a National Emergency (under Article 359), subject to limitations regarding Articles 20 and 21.
- The scope of relief under Article 32 is limited to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
- The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 is obligatory in nature when a Fundamental Right is violated; the court cannot refuse to entertain a petition.
- Article 32 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away even by a constitutional amendment (Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973 implications).
- Comparison with Article 226:
- Article 32 empowers only the Supreme Court; Article 226 empowers High Courts.
- Article 32 can be invoked only for enforcing Fundamental Rights; Article 226 can be invoked for enforcing Fundamental Rights and other legal rights.
- The right to move the SC under Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right; the right to move a HC under Article 226 is a constitutional right, but not a fundamental right.
- SC’s power under Article 32 is confined to issuing writs for FRs; HC’s power under Article 226 extends to issuing directions, orders, or writs for FRs and any other purpose.
- Relief under Article 32 is obligatory if FR is violated; Relief under Article 226 is discretionary.
- Limitations on Article 32:
- Locus Standi: Usually, only the aggrieved party can file, but Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has relaxed this rule for public interest matters.
- Res Judicata: If a matter has been decided by a competent court, it cannot be re-litigated under Article 32 (unless the previous decision itself violates FR).
- Delay: Undue delay in filing the petition may lead to refusal of relief.
- Matters requiring investigation of facts: SC may refuse to entertain complex factual disputes better handled by lower courts.
- Matters sub-judice before other courts.
Additional Comments
- Article 32 is considered the ultimate protector of the Fundamental Rights.
- Its inclusion as a Fundamental Right underscores the importance the framers gave to the enforceability of these rights.
- The power to issue writs is a powerful tool for judicial review and ensuring constitutional governance.
- The development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has significantly broadened the scope of Article 32, allowing socially conscious citizens or groups to approach the Court on behalf of the underprivileged or victims of rights violations.
- While Article 32 provides a direct route to the Supreme Court, generally, individuals are advised to approach the High Court under Article 226 first, unless the issue involves a matter of national importance or direct challenge to a law’s constitutionality affecting FRs.
Summary
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It empowers the Supreme Court to issue various writs, such as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto, to protect these rights. Considered a fundamental right itself and the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, Article 32 makes the Supreme Court the ultimate guarantor of fundamental freedoms. While Parliament can empower other courts, the primary writ jurisdiction for enforcing Fundamental Rights lies with the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226. The right under Article 32 can be suspended only during a National Emergency as per constitutional provisions.