CDS (I) 2020 General Knowledge · Question 92 of 120

Correct — C, That no fundamental right has been infringed. Article 32 is not a general grievance window; it is the right to move the Supreme Court 'for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part', that is, by Part III. The jurisdiction is therefore keyed to a single question — has a Fundamental Right been violated? If the answer is no, the Court has nothing under Article 32 to enforce, and it refuses relief for want of jurisdiction rather than as a matter of discretion. That makes it the ground in the strict sense. The other three are reasons a Bench may decline in a particular case while the door stays open — a petitioner sent to the High Court under Article 226 may come back, a petitioner who asked for the wrong writ may be granted the right one, and a dispute turning on contested facts may be sent to a forum that can take evidence.

• (a)The aggrieved person can get remedy from another court — A real reason for a Bench to say 'go to the High Court first', but it is a self-imposed rule of practice, not a bar. Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right under Article 32(1), and the existence of an alternative remedy does not extinguish it — the Supreme Court has repeatedly entertained Article 32 petitions despite Article 226 being available.
• (b)That disputed facts have to be investigated — Again a familiar reason for declining — writ proceedings are decided on affidavits and are a poor vehicle for contested facts. But it goes to the suitability of the forum, not to whether the Court has jurisdiction at all, and courts have taken evidence where the fundamental-rights question demanded it.
• (d)That the petitioner has not asked for the proper writ applicable to his/her case — The weakest of the three. Article 32(2) lets the Court issue directions or orders or writs 'whichever may be appropriate', so the mislabelling of a writ is a defect the Court can cure itself; it does not force a refusal.

Article 32 gives the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and empowers the Court to issue directions, orders or writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari — for that purpose. The right itself cannot be suspended except as the Constitution provides. Article 226 gives High Courts a wider writ power, exercisable both for Fundamental Rights and 'for any other purpose'.

The item turns on the difference between a jurisdictional bar and a discretionary refusal, and three of the four options are the discretionary kind. Fix the wording of Article 32 in mind — 'for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part' — and the answer falls out: no Part III right in play, no Article 32. This is also why the width of Article 226 matters. A citizen with a purely legal or statutory grievance and no Fundamental Right at stake has a High Court remedy under Article 226 and none under Article 32.

• Article 32(1) makes the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Part III rights itself a Fundamental Right.
• Article 32(2) allows the Court to issue directions, orders or writs, including the five named writs, 'whichever may be appropriate'.
• Article 226 is wider in subject matter — a High Court may issue writs for Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose — but it is not a Fundamental Right.
• Ambedkar called Article 32 the article without which the Constitution would be a nullity — the heart and soul of the Constitution.
• Mandamus lies only to enforce a public duty, and quo warranto may be sought by any public-spirited person without showing personal injury.

• Treating Article 32 as a general appeal to the Supreme Court; it is confined to the enforcement of Part III.
• Assuming the availability of a High Court remedy takes away the Article 32 right — it does not, though a Bench may still decline to entertain the petition.
• Assuming Article 226 is narrower than Article 32; in subject matter it is wider, and only in status is it lower.

As a wording test on Article 32 — what the Court may issue, when it may refuse, and how it differs from Article 226.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which one of the following writs is issued to a public official to compel the performance of a public duty?

  • (a)Certiorari
  • (b)Mandamus
  • (c)Prohibition
  • (d)Quo warranto

  Answer(b) Mandamus — it commands the performance of a public duty and will not lie against a purely private body unless that body has been charged with a public duty.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Under which one of the following Articles can a High Court issue writs both for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose?

  • (a)Article 32
  • (b)Article 131
  • (c)Article 226
  • (d)Article 227

  Answer(c) Article 226 — the High Court's writ jurisdiction is wider in subject matter than the Supreme Court's under Article 32, though it is not itself a Fundamental Right.