Article 32 of the Indian Constitution: A Guardian of Fundamental Rights

ABSTRACT:

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is a powerful provision that guarantees individuals the right to seek justice from the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are violated. Often referred to as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, Article 32 establishes the Supreme Court as the guardian and protector of fundamental rights. This article examines the nature, purpose, and types of writ jurisdiction provided under Article 32 and explores its significance in upholding the rights of Indian citizens.

 UNDERSTANDING ARTICLE 32

Article 32 grants individuals the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders for the protection and execution of these rights. The Parliament may also confer similar powers to other courts within their jurisdiction, provided it does not infringe upon the rights guaranteed by Article 32. This ensures that individuals have an assured right to seek remedies for the violation of their fundamental rights without undergoing a lengthy process of approaching lower courts.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, considered Article 32 to be the most essential provision, stating that it is the soul and heart of the Constitution. It reflects the importance placed on safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring justice for all.

NATURE OF WRIT JURISDICTION

The writ jurisdiction provided under Article 32 is discretionary in nature. The Supreme Court exercises its discretion guided by five important factors:

Locus Standi: It refers to the right of an individual to bring an action or be heard before a court.

Alternative Relief: It pertains to the remedies sought in various forms in a lawsuit.
Res Judicata: It involves cases that have already been decided.

Questions of Fact: It deals with issues that require the resolution of factual disputes.

Laches: It is a defense that bars recovery by the plaintiff due to undue delay in seeking relief.

These factors form the basis for the Supreme Court’s exercise of its discretionary powers while considering writ petitions filed under Article 32.

TYPES OF WRITS

Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue five types of writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. These writs play a crucial role in safeguarding the rights and liberties of Indian citizens. Let’s explore each of these writs:

1. Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus, which means “You have the Body” in Latin, is a writ that protects personal liberty and safeguards individuals from unlawful detention. It allows individuals to seek relief from the court when they believe they have been wrongfully imprisoned or detained without lawful authority. The court issues an order to the custodian of the detainee, demanding the production of the person before the court to determine the lawfulness of their detention.

Important judgments related to Habeas Corpus include the Kerala Habeas Corpus case, where the writ was filed by the father of a college student who died in police custody. The court found that the student had indeed died while in police custody. Another significant case is ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, also known as the Habeas Corpus case, where the court held that Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended even during an emergency.

2. Certiorari

A certiorari is a writ issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to review the judgments and orders of lower courts. It is primarily used to correct jurisdictional errors, legal errors, or errors apparent on the face of the record. Certiorari can be issued against both judicial and quasi-judicial bodies that infringe upon the rights of individuals.

In the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors, the Supreme Court explained the scope of Certiorari and stated that it can only be issued against inferior courts and not against equal or higher courts. It is a remedy available when a court has acted without jurisdiction or more than its jurisdiction.

3. Mandamus

Mandamus, meaning “We Command” in Latin, is a writ that directs a public authority, government officer, or corporation to perform a specific duty or obligation. It is issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to ensure the proper performance of mandatory and ministerial duties. Unlike the Habeas Corpus, Mandamus cannot be used against private individuals.

The conditions for the issuance of the Mandamus include the existence of a legal right of the petitioner, a public nature of the duty, and the subsistence of the right sought to be enforced at the time of the petition. The Supreme Court has held that the Mandamus is not a writ of right but is granted if the duty is of a public nature and affects the rights of an individual.

4. Quo Warranto

Quo Warranto, meaning “By what authority or warrant” in Latin, is a writ issued to inquire into the legality of a person’s claim to a public office. It investigates whether the person holding the office has the legal authority to do so. Quo Warranto cannot be issued against private individuals or offices, but only against those holding public offices.

The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to issue the writ of Quo Warranto. It is used to prevent the usurpation of public offices and ensure that only those with the rightful authority hold such positions.

5. Prohibition

Prohibition is a writ issued by a higher court, such as the Supreme Court or High Court, to a subordinate court or tribunal to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to the rules of natural justice. It is primarily used to maintain order and ensure that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities act within their prescribed limits.

Prohibition cannot be issued against administrative bodies, legislative bodies, private individuals, or organizations. Its purpose is to restrict the exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts and tribunals. The writ of Prohibition acts as a deterrent against excesses or abuse of power by judicial or quasi-judicial authorities.

ARTICLE 32 AND ARTICLE 226: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution both play a crucial role in safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring justice. While Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to directly enforce fundamental rights, Article 226 grants similar powers to the High Courts. However, there are some significant differences between the two provisions.

Article 32 is considered the “heart and soul” of the Constitution and cannot be suspended even during an emergency. On the other hand, Article 226 can be suspended during an emergency. This highlights the importance placed on Article 32 in upholding fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs under Article 32 against any person or authority throughout the territory of India. In contrast, the High Courts can issue writs within their jurisdiction, which may extend to local courts as specified by Parliament.

Despite these differences, both Article 32 and Article 226 ensure that individuals have access to justice and the enforcement of their fundamental rights. They serve as vital mechanisms for upholding the principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law in the Indian legal system.

PREVIOUS JUDGMENTS RELATED TO ARTICLE 32

Several landmark judgments have shaped the interpretation and application of Article 32 in India. These judgments have played a significant role in defining the scope and extent of the rights guaranteed by Article 32. Here are a few notable judgments:

Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras (1950): The Supreme Court held that Article 32 provides a guaranteed remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights and established the Court as the custodian and guarantor of these rights.

Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur vs SS Shukla (1976): During the Emergency, the Supreme Court held that the right to constitutional remedies under Article 32 could be suspended during a national emergency. However, this judgment has been widely criticized for diluting the importance of Article 32.

Daryao And Others vs The State Of U. P. And Others (1961): The Supreme Court ruled that even though Article 32 is a fundamental right, any provision of law that overrides fundamental rights shall be found unconstitutional.

These judgments highlight the evolving nature of Article 32 jurisprudence and the Supreme Court’s role in protecting and upholding fundamental rights.

CONCLUSION

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution serves as a guardian of fundamental rights and ensures access to justice for all citizens. It empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and acts as a check against the violation of these rights. The writs of Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, and Prohibition play a crucial role in upholding the rights and liberties of individuals.

The importance of Article 32 cannot be overstated, as it guarantees individuals the right to seek remedies directly from the Supreme Court and ensures the protection of their fundamental rights. The Court’s judgments and interpretations of Article 32 shape the course of justice in India, ensuring that the principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law are upheld.

Through Article 32, the Indian Constitution stands as a testament to the commitment to protect and promote the fundamental rights of its citizens, ensuring that justice is accessible to all.