Which among the following statements regarding the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not correct?

Correct — C, the statement that this power can derogate the power conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32(2). Article 226 itself says the opposite. Clause (4) provides in terms that the power conferred on a High Court by the article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32 — the two jurisdictions run side by side, and a citizen may approach either. Because the question asks which statement is not correct, that is the answer. The remaining three reproduce Article 226 accurately: the High Court may issue all five writs, may do so for the enforcement of Part III rights and also 'for any other purpose', and may direct any person, authority or government within its territorial jurisdiction.

• (a)It can issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, and prohibition. — Accurate. Article 226(1) names habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, and also allows directions and orders in the nature of those writs.
• (b)Writs can be issued to enforce any rights conferred by Part-III and for any other purpose. — Accurate, and it is the clause that makes Article 226 wider than Article 32. The Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights; a High Court may also act 'for any other purpose', meaning enforcement of an ordinary legal right.
• (d)Writ can be issued to any authority under its jurisdiction. — Accurate. A High Court's writ runs to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases the Government, within the territories over which it exercises jurisdiction, and also where the cause of action arises there.

India has two writ jurisdictions, and they are deliberately not identical. Article 32 makes the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights itself a fundamental right, which is why Dr Ambedkar called it the heart and soul of the Constitution; the Supreme Court's writ power under it is confined to Part III. Article 226 gives every High Court a wider power in one respect and a narrower one in another — wider because it extends to any other purpose beyond fundamental rights, narrower because it is bounded by territory.

The trap is that the incorrect option sounds like a rule of hierarchy, and hierarchy is what a candidate expects between a High Court and the Supreme Court. But Article 226(4) exists precisely to prevent that inference. Nothing a High Court does under Article 226 cuts down what the Supreme Court can do under Article 32, and the availability of the High Court remedy does not by itself bar a petition to the Supreme Court, although in practice the Supreme Court often asks a petitioner to go to the High Court first. Remember also that Article 226 is not a fundamental right and can be amended by ordinary constitutional amendment, whereas Article 32 sits inside Part III.

• Article 226(1) empowers every High Court to issue directions, orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.
• Article 226(1) permits their issue for the enforcement of Part III rights 'and for any other purpose', which makes it wider in scope than Article 32.
• Article 226(4) states that this power shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 32(2).
• Article 226(2) allows a High Court to act where the cause of action arises within its territory even if the authority sits outside it.
• Article 32 is itself a fundamental right; Article 226 is not, though the power of judicial review under both has been held to be part of the basic structure.

• Assuming a High Court power must always be subordinate to a Supreme Court power; clause (4) says this one is not in derogation of it.
• Forgetting the words 'and for any other purpose', which are what make Article 226 broader than Article 32.
• Overlooking that the question asks for the statement which is not correct.

As a negative-form item on a single article, so the work is to recall the article clause by clause and find the one sentence that has been inverted.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which one of the following is true of Article 226 but not of Article 32?

  • (a)It can be used to issue the writ of mandamus
  • (b)It can be used for purposes other than the enforcement of fundamental rights
  • (c)It is itself a fundamental right
  • (d)It has no territorial limitation

  Answer(b) It can be used for purposes other than the enforcement of fundamental rights — Article 32 is confined to Part III.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The writ of quo warranto is issued to

  • (a)produce a detained person before the court
  • (b)question the authority by which a person holds a public office
  • (c)quash the order of a lower court or tribunal
  • (d)compel a public authority to perform its duty

  Answer(b) question the authority by which a person holds a public office.