CDS (I) 2024 General Knowledge · Question 18 of 120

Correct — C, both 1 and 2. Statement 1 states the ordinary rule and is plainly right: Fundamental Rights in Part III run against the State as defined in Article 12, and an individual whose right is infringed by a government authority's act may move the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 or a High Court under Article 226. Statement 2 is also right, and it does not contradict the first — it extends it. A right can be defeated by what an authority fails to do as surely as by what it does, and the remedy for that is the writ of mandamus, which exists precisely to command a public authority to perform a public duty it has omitted to perform. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acted on that footing: in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) the State's failure to bring undertrial prisoners to trial and to provide them legal aid was held to violate Article 21. Both statements therefore stand.

• (a)1 only — It stops short. Inaction by a public authority is equally actionable — mandamus lies against a failure to perform a duty, and Article 21 has been held violated by State omissions.
• (b)2 only — Statement 1 is the basic proposition on which statement 2 is built, and it is correct on its own. If 2 is true, 1 cannot be false.
• (d)Neither 1 nor 2 — Part III rights are directly enforceable — Article 32, which Ambedkar called the heart and soul of the Constitution, is itself a Fundamental Right to move the Supreme Court for their enforcement.

Part III of the Constitution both confers Fundamental Rights and supplies the machinery to enforce them. Article 12 defines 'the State' against which those rights run; Article 13 makes any law inconsistent with them void; and Article 32 gives every person the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for their enforcement, with power in the Court to issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. Article 226 gives High Courts a wider writ jurisdiction covering Fundamental Rights and other legal rights alike.

The two statements look like rivals because the second opens with 'not only... but also', which reads like a correction of the first. They are in fact nested: statement 2 contains statement 1 and adds to it. Whenever a pair is nested like this, 'only 1' and 'only 2' are both structurally suspect, and the real contest is between 'both' and 'neither'. Since Part III is unquestionably enforceable, 'neither' is out, which leaves 'both'. The substantive point is worth holding on to as well — the writ of mandamus is the standard answer to official inaction, so an examiner who mentions inaction under Part III is almost always pointing at a right, not at a limitation.

• Article 12 defines 'the State' for the purposes of Part III; Article 13 renders laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void.
• Article 32 gives the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and is itself a Fundamental Right.
• Mandamus is the writ issued to compel a public authority to perform a public duty it has failed to perform — the standard remedy against inaction.
• In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) the State's failure to provide speedy trial and free legal aid to undertrials was held to violate Article 21.

• Reading a 'not only... but also' statement as contradicting the plainer statement before it, when it merely extends it.
• Assuming Fundamental Rights can only be violated by a positive act; a refusal or failure to act is equally actionable through mandamus.
• Confusing Article 32 with Article 226 — Article 32 is confined to Fundamental Rights, while a High Court under Article 226 can also enforce other legal rights.

Asked as a two-statement item where the second nests the first; test each statement independently before touching the codes.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which writ is issued to compel a public authority to perform a public duty it has failed to perform?

  • (a)Habeas corpus
  • (b)Mandamus
  • (c)Certiorari
  • (d)Quo warranto

  Answer(b) Mandamus — literally 'we command', it is the remedy against official inaction where a public duty exists.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Under which Article can a person move the Supreme Court of India directly for the enforcement of a Fundamental Right?

  • (a)Article 19
  • (b)Article 21
  • (c)Article 32
  • (d)Article 226

  Answer(c) Article 32 — it is itself a Fundamental Right; Article 226 confers the wider but discretionary writ power of the High Courts.