Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is an essential part of our Indian Constitution, which gives the rights of the laws to provide justice to the people of our country; this article is also considered to be a legal security earning point because it offers remedies for the violation of our fundamental rights. According to Article 32, if any citizen of India’s fundamental rights are violated, they can seek justice from the Supreme Court in this article. This is the only article where people can go directly to the Supreme Court. This article is also known as the spine of our Constitution. Father of the Indian Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s statement about this article is, “Article 32 is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it. Without it, the Constitution would be a nullity.” because this article gives citizens the power to take direct recourse to the High Court for the protection of their rights. The simple motive of Article 32 is that if the rights of citizens living In India, are not violated, then the way for them to get justice should be cleared.
Table of Contents
- Historical Context of Article 32
- Provision of Article 32
2.1 Clause 1 (Article 32(1))
2.2 Clause 2 (Article 32(2))
2.3 Clause 3 (Article 32(3))
2.4 Clause 4 (Article 32(4)) - Types of Writs
3.1 Habeas Corpus
3.2 Mandamus
3.3 Quo Warranto
3.4 Certiorari
3.5 Prohibition - When can supreme court dismiss a writ petition
- Conclusion
1. Historical Context of Article 32
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was started at the time of independence when the country was struggling for independence. At that time the Constitution was in development, so, at the time of the struggle for independence, the Indian people saw how the British had oppressed our rights by oppressing us and made us understand that there was no remedy in the law of the country, and then when our country became independent. So, the constitution of our country has been made in which our fundamental rights have been made, and to protect these fundamental rights, we need Article 32, which gives us security in case of violation of our basic rights.
2. Provision of Article 32
In article 32 of the Indian constitution, there are 4 clauses, and each clause describes provisions, conditions, and scope for the people in case of a violation of fundamental rights.
Article 32(1) – Right to go to the Supreme Court:
This clause gives you the right to go directly to the Supreme Court if your fundamental rights are violated. It means you don’t need to go to lower courts to seek justice; you can go directly to the Supreme Court in case of violation of fundamental rights, so no state can violate your fundamental rights or your basic rights if it happens so you can directly go to a higher court under this clause of article 32 In simple words if your basic rights are taken away, you can directly ask the Supreme Court for help to protect them. You can do this with a legal process without going to any other court.
Article 32(2) – Supreme Court’s Power to Issue Writs
If someone violates your basic right, you will go to the Supreme Court so Supreme Court has the power to issue the writ. A writ is the order given by and there are five writs.
Habeas Corpus: An order to release a person who is unlawfully detained.
Mandamus: An order telling a government official or head to do something they are legally required or should be done.
Prohibition: An order to stop a lower court or tribunal from making a decision that exceeds its authority.
Certiorari: It is an order to cancel or review the decision of a lower court or tribunal court.
Quo Warranto: An order questioning a person’s right to hold a public office.
Article 32(3) – Parliament Can Allow Other Courts to Issue Writs
As we know Supreme Court is the main body responsible for protecting fundamental rights, but Parliament also has the power to allow the court (the High Court) to issue writs as well.
And this is only can happen through a law passed by the parliament. It means other than Supreme Court parliament have also right and power to allow the court to issue writ under this provision.
Article 32(4) – No Law Can Limit the Supreme Court’s Power
In this clause of Article 32 clearly mentions no law can take away or limit the power of the Supreme Court by protecting fundamental rights. This means no law can stop people from approaching any individual to the Supreme Court for the protection of their fundamental rights. So, this is clear the court power in this clause is Absolute.
3. Types of Writs under Article 32
Habeas Corpus
This is one of the important writs for an individual or we can say for personal liberty the main purpose of this writ is to seek relief from the unlawful detention of an individual. It is for the protection of an individual from being harmed by the administration system suppose that some police cops take a person to the police station and do illegal detention so that’s an individual have the right to go to the Supreme Court for his protection by illegal detention.
The Kehar Singh v. Union of India, 1989,
is a landmark judgment for the writ of Habeas Corpus. It had been the case of Kehar Singh, who, upon being convicted in the case of the assassination of Indira Gandhi, filed a writ of Habeas Corpus against his detention. Habeas Corpus could not be invoked to challenge the decisions made under the discretion of the president, who rejected a mercy petition. It thus brought to light that despite Habeas Corpus being an antidote against unlawful detention, the tool does not apply to questions on issues involving executive powers or national security. It thereby defines the limits of the writ in certain circumstances.
Quo Warranto
This writ is an order in law that is issued to challenge someone’s right to hold a public office. How come so it comes from the Latin term “Quo Warranto,” and this term means “by what authority.” So, this writ is issued when someone is holding a public office unlawfully. It can be filed in the Supreme Court or High Courts by anyone who has a belief that any a person is illegally appointed to any governmental position without his authority, or by unlawful manner
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966)
A landmark Quo Warranto case is Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966). In this case, Dr. Lohia challenged the appointment of certain persons to public offices, they we’re not legally qualified. The writ of Quo Warranto was issued by the Supreme Court questioning the legality of their appointment. In case a person usurps public office without proper authority, he can be ousted through this writ. This court demonstrated how Quo Warranto ensures that only qualified people occupy public offices.
Mandamus
Mandamus refers to a court order wherein the court requires an individual in authority or power, responsible for perform a legal duty or action and is required by law, to carry out his/her action and obligation. It issues were, after having a right of law, the authority neglects to act or chooses not to act and do so within a reasonable timeframe. For instance, in case a government department fails to provide a certificate or issue a permit that it is legally obligated to, a person can file an application in court asking the department to issue a Mandamus compelling it to perform. Mandamus is applied to ensure that the public officials and authorities serve in their capacity and within the limits of their office so that there is fairness and accountability within the public administration
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2006)
A well-known case for the Mandamus writ is State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2006). In this
case, Raj Kumar was a government worker who requested a Mandamus from the court because his
salary was being withheld although he did all the work properly. Supreme Court ruled in Favour of
him and commanded the government to pay his salary as it is their liability. This case is significant
because it demonstrated how the Mandamus can be used to make authorities do what they are legally
required to do, hence making them accountable and fair.
Certiorari
It is usually invoked when the decision of the lower court or tribunal has been made beyond
their jurisdiction or is unlawful. For example, a party whose decision has been made by a tribunal when the former should not have done so because of a procedural wrong or lack of jurisdiction may apply for a Certiorari to have the decision reviewed and possibly quashed. This Writ is for ensuring the lower courts and the authorities respect their limits in their doings and avoid violation in the principles of justice. Essentially, certiorari serves as a guarantee, so the lower courts follow laws and fair decisions.
R v. Home Secretary, exparte Hosenball (1977).
One of the most famous cases concerning the Certiorari writ is R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Hosenball (1977). The British government detained Hosenball on grounds of national security. He challenged the detention by appealing to the court for review and quashing of the decision. The House of Lords exercised the Certiorari writ to review the case but ultimately decided that the Home Secretary’s decision was legal and within the purview of the Home Secretary. This case was significant in showing that while Certiorari may review decisions, it does not provide for a review of the actions taken by the government related to national security because these are issues of executive discretion.
Prohibition
The Prohibition writ is one of the five types of writs as envisaged under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. It is granted by a superior court like the Supreme Court or a High Court to prevent the subordinate courts or tribunals from performing an act that is more than the limits of the authority or jurisdictions of their respective courts. In simple words, it is used to restrain a court or an authority from doing something that it is not lawfully empowered to do.
Bihar State Electricity Board v. Bihar Industries Limited (2000)
One very famous case in respect of the Prohibition writ is Bihar State Electricity Board v.Bihar Industries Limited (2000). In the case, the Bihar State Electricity Board was directedby a lower court to pay damages to Bihar Industries Limited over a dispute with respect to the supply of electricity. The Bihar State Electricity Board petitioned for prohibition writ in the Supreme Court, appealing that the judgment given by the lower court was extra judicial as theformer lacked authority to make such a verdict. The Supreme Court accepted their plea and issued the writ of Prohibition, directing the lower court not to go ahead with the case, as the court had exceeded its legal powers in passing that judgment. This case is of importance because it demonstrates how the Prohibition writ can be used to restrain a court from making decisions beyond its legal authority, ensuring judicial powers are not misused
4. When a Supreme Court dismiss a Writ Petition
A writ petition is filed when a person seeks the vindication of his fundamental rights or to move against the action which he claims is illegal. However, the Court does not accept each of these petitions and may reject the same if it feels that there are the following:
Lacks Merit: This is when the Supreme Court holds that the ground for the petition is weakly founded or does not pertain to an arguable question. The case is dismissed since the claims of the petitioner lack sufficient evidence and valid legal arguments.
No Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court is generally approached for enforcing fundamental rights. If the petition does not involve a violation of these rights, or the issue raised does not affect the public or the individual’s rights, the Court may reject the petition.
Alternative Remedies Available: If some other legal remedy is available, like approaching the lower court or some other forum, the Court may dismiss the petition and ask the person to use those options first.
Delay in Filing: The Court may dismiss the case if there is a substantial delay in filing the writ petition without reasonable explanation. It prevents petitions from being filed in time. Frivolous Petitions: The Supreme Court also dismisses the writ petitions in some cases on being frivolous or filed under grounds other than genuine concerns of law. Sometimes it is filed to delay the justice process or to cause annoyance to others.
5. Conclusion
As we know Article 32 is a remedy and powerful tool to protection of basic rights. It grants citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court directly if their rights are violated, ensuring that the judiciary acts as a guardian of these rights. It also empowers the individual as well as strengthens the rule of law in India by issuing various writs that may be Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition and Quo Warranto. Each writ has a different purpose and protection at another level, the significance of Article 32 transcends legal protection since it embodies the promise of the state that it would restrain itself to respect the rights of every