MPSC 2024 Prelims Q85: Which article empowers the High Courts to issue directions

Q: What is the answer to MPSC 2024 Prelims Q85?

(1). Correct — option (1), Article 226. This is the article that gives every High Court power to issue, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, directions, orders or writs — including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari — for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. Two features of the wording matter and both are examinable. The first is the phrase 'and for any other purpose': the High Court's writ jurisdiction is wider than the Supreme Court's under Article 32, which is confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights, so a High Court may issue a writ where an ordinary legal right has been infringed, not only a fundamental one. The second is the territorial reach. Under Article 226(1) the power runs within the High Court's own territories, and Article 226(2), inserted by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1963, extends it to a government or authority or person outside those territories if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within them. The counterpart provision to remember alongside it is Article 32, under which the Supreme Court exercises the same writ power for fundamental rights and which is itself a fundamental right — the provision Dr Ambedkar called the heart and soul of the Constitution. Article 226 is not a fundamental right, but the Supreme Court held in L. Chandra Kumar (1997) that the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 forms part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away.

MPSC 2024 Prelims Paper-I · Question 85 of 100

Maharashtra Gazetted Civil Services Combined Preliminary Examination 2024, held 1 December 2024. Transcribed from the commission's own booklet (संच A); answer as per the official MPSC final answer key.

Which article empowers the High Courts to issue directions for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights ?

(1)Article 226
(2)Article 135
(3)Article 143
(4)Article 133

Answer

(1)

Why

Correct — option (1), Article 226. This is the article that gives every High Court power to issue, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, directions, orders or writs — including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari — for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. Two features of the wording matter and both are examinable. The first is the phrase 'and for any other purpose': the High Court's writ jurisdiction is wider than the Supreme Court's under Article 32, which is confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights, so a High Court may issue a writ where an ordinary legal right has been infringed, not only a fundamental one. The second is the territorial reach. Under Article 226(1) the power runs within the High Court's own territories, and Article 226(2), inserted by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1963, extends it to a government or authority or person outside those territories if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within them. The counterpart provision to remember alongside it is Article 32, under which the Supreme Court exercises the same writ power for fundamental rights and which is itself a fundamental right — the provision Dr Ambedkar called the heart and soul of the Constitution. Article 226 is not a fundamental right, but the Supreme Court held in L. Chandra Kumar (1997) that the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 forms part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away.

Why the others are wrong

(2)Article 135 — Article 135 is a transitional provision about the Supreme Court, not about the High Courts at all. It says that the jurisdiction and powers exercisable immediately before the commencement of the Constitution by the Federal Court, under any existing law and in matters to which Articles 133 and 134 do not apply, shall be exercisable by the Supreme Court. It is a continuity clause bridging the Federal Court set up under the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Supreme Court that replaced it in 1950, and it has nothing to do with the enforcement of fundamental rights.
(3)Article 143 — Article 143 is the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It allows the President, where a question of law or fact of public importance has arisen or is likely to arise, to refer it to the Supreme Court for its opinion, and the Court may report its opinion to the President; the opinion is advisory and not binding, and the Court may decline to answer a reference under clause (1). Famous references such as the Kerala Education Bill (1958), the Berubari Union case (1960) and the Special Court Reference have come by this route. It confers no power to issue writs and belongs to the Supreme Court, not the High Courts.
(4)Article 133 — Article 133 governs appeals to the Supreme Court from a High Court in civil proceedings, allowed where the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance which in its opinion needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. It is appellate machinery running upward from the High Courts, whereas the question asks about the original power of the High Courts themselves. Its criminal counterpart is Article 134 and the special leave provision is Article 136 — a cluster worth keeping distinct from the writ articles, 32 and 226.

Concept

The writ jurisdiction of the Indian courts is split between two articles and the differences between them are the substance of most questions on the subject. Article 32 gives the Supreme Court power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and makes the right to move the Court for that purpose a fundamental right in itself; it can be suspended only as the Constitution allows, which is the significance of Article 359. Article 226 gives the same writ power to the High Courts, over a wider field, because it extends to the enforcement of fundamental rights 'and for any other purpose' — that is, to legal rights generally. The Supreme Court's power under Article 32 runs across the whole country while a High Court's runs within its own territories, subject to the cause-of-action extension in Article 226(2). Five writs are named in both articles: habeas corpus, to produce a detained person before the court; mandamus, to command a public authority to do its duty; prohibition, to stop a subordinate court or tribunal exceeding its jurisdiction; certiorari, to quash an order already passed by one; and quo warranto, to question a person's title to a public office. In practice the High Courts are the workhorses of writ jurisdiction, and Article 226 is the article under which most constitutional litigation in India begins.

MPSC asks article-number questions in almost every polity section, and the distractors are drawn from the same Part of the Constitution so that the numbers all look familiar. Here every wrong option lies in Part V, Chapter IV, the Supreme Court, while the answer lies in Part VI, Chapter V, the High Courts — so a candidate who knows only that the number is 'somewhere in the 130s to 220s' has no way through. The efficient preparation is to hold the small cluster of judiciary articles as a map rather than as a list: 124 establishes the Supreme Court, 129 makes it a court of record, 131 to 136 set out its original, appellate and special-leave jurisdictions, 143 its advisory role, 214 establishes the High Courts, 215 makes them courts of record, 226 is their writ power and 227 their power of superintendence over subordinate courts. Once that map exists, an item like this becomes a single step rather than a guess.

Key facts

Article 226 empowers every High Court to issue directions, orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
Article 32 gives the Supreme Court the same writ power but only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and the right to move the Supreme Court under it is itself a fundamental right.
Article 226(2), inserted by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1963, extends a High Court's writ power to authorities outside its territories where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within them.
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) the Supreme Court held the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 to be part of the basic structure.
Article 133 governs civil appeals to the Supreme Court from High Courts, Article 135 continues the Federal Court's jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, and Article 143 is the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction on a presidential reference.

Only one of these articles is about the High Courts at all — the other three belong to the Supreme Court

(1) Article 226→THE HIGH COURTS' WRIT POWER — directions, orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, for the enforcement of the rights in Part III AND FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE

(2) Article 135→SUPREME COURT, transitional — the jurisdiction the Federal Court held before 1950, in matters outside Articles 133 and 134, continues in the Supreme Court. A continuity clause bridging the Government of India Act, 1935 and the new Court, not a remedy

(3) Article 143→SUPREME COURT's ADVISORY jurisdiction — a presidential reference on a question of law or fact of public importance; the opinion is not binding and the Court may decline to answer. Kerala Education Bill (1958), Berubari Union (1960)

(4) Article 133→APPEALS to the Supreme Court from a High Court in civil proceedings, on the High Court's certificate that a substantial question of law of general importance needs deciding. Machinery running upward from the High Courts, not their own original power

Those four words 'and for any other purpose' make the High Court's writ jurisdiction WIDER than the Supreme Court's under Article 32, which reaches only fundamental rights — a High Court may issue a writ where an ordinary legal right has been infringed. Article 226(2), inserted by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1963, extends the power to an authority outside the Court's territories where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within them. Article 226 is not itself a fundamental right as Article 32 is, but L. Chandra Kumar (1997) held this jurisdiction to be part of the basic structure.

Study next

Article 32 and Article 226 compared — scope, territorial reach, and whether the remedy is itself a fundamental rightThe five writs and the situations in which each is issued, with leading illustrationsArticles 131 to 136 — the original, appellate and special leave jurisdictions of the Supreme CourtArticle 227 and the High Courts' power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdictionL. Chandra Kumar (1997) and the position of tribunals in relation to High Court judicial review

Common traps

Attributing the High Courts' writ power to Article 32, which belongs to the Supreme Court alone
Forgetting that Article 226 reaches beyond fundamental rights because of the words 'and for any other purpose'
Confusing the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 with any power to issue writs
Treating adjacent numbers as interchangeable — 133, 134, 135 and 136 each carry a distinct jurisdiction

Article-number recall is a staple of MPSC polity and is asked both directly, as here, and in matching format pairing articles with their subjects. The judiciary cluster is among the most frequently tested, and the writ articles are the most frequently tested part of it. Expect distractors chosen for numerical proximity or for belonging to the same chapter, and prepare by learning the articles in blocks with their headings rather than as isolated numbers.

Related PYQs

No directly related past PYQ was found.

Practice

practice — not a real PYQ
Which of the following is a difference between the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and that of a High Court under Article 226 ?
- (a)The Supreme Court may issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, while a High Court may also do so for any other purpose
- (b)The Supreme Court may issue only three of the five writs
- (c)A High Court may issue writs only against the state government
- (d)There is no difference; the two articles are worded identically
Answer(a) The Supreme Court may issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, while a High Court may also do so for any other purpose — the words 'and for any other purpose' in Article 226 make the High Courts' writ jurisdiction wider in subject matter, though the Supreme Court's runs across the whole territory of India.
practice — not a real PYQ
The writ issued to command a public authority to perform a public duty which it has failed to perform is known as :
- (a)Certiorari
- (b)Mandamus
- (c)Quo warranto
- (d)Prohibition
Answer(b) Mandamus — literally 'we command', it is issued to a public official, corporation, inferior court or government to perform a duty it is legally bound to perform. Certiorari quashes an order already passed by a subordinate court or tribunal, prohibition stops one from exceeding its jurisdiction, and quo warranto questions a person's title to a public office.