The Indian Constitution endows every individual with certain fundamental rights. These rights grant every citizen equality regardless of the person’s race, caste, faith, place of birth, or gender. Articles 12 to 35 of the Constitution of India deal with these rights. The Indian Constitution provides certain remedies in case of violation of fundamental rights. Decision regarding the remedy is left to the discretion of the judiciary. Part III of the Indian Constitution deals with legal remedies. Legal remedies protect the fundamental rights against their violation. It gives individuals rights to seek remedies for violation of their fundamental rights.

The Indian Constitution also restricts the state from framing laws that violate fundamental rights. These fundamental rights are an important part of our Constitution. These rights have no value without the right to seek remedy against their violation. Without this right, other fundamental rights become meaningless. For this reason, it is referred to as the heart of our Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar calls it as the “spirit of the constitution and exceptionally heart of it”. Article 32 of the Constitution of India designates the Supreme Court as the protector and underwriter of the fundamental rights. The power to issue writs comes under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This enables an individual to move the Supreme Court directly for a remedy.

Article 32 and Scope of Article 32

Article 32 is a fundamental right that is entitled to every the citizen of the country by the Indian Constitution. It deals with remedies in case of violation of fundamental rights. This right enables an individual to move the Supreme Court to seek compensation. Article 32 is a remedial right and is not substantive. According to this article, the Supreme Court “shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”. This right “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution”. Part III of the Constitution of India contains this article including other fundamental rights. Right to constitutional remedies is available only when there is a violation of fundamental right.

Right to constitutional remedy cannot be removed without a constitutional amendment. Article 32 can be suspended during an emergency and not otherwise. The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in protecting fundamental rights. The courts have used judicial review in an efficient manner in cases of violation of fundamental rights. The right to constitutional remedy cannot be suspended when the issue is related to Article 20 and 21. According to article 32, the Supreme Court “shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”. An individual can approach both the Supreme Court and the High Court for remedial action. The responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of citizens is assigned to the judiciary.

Article 32 gives the Supreme Court the power to issue orders, or writs in relation to violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has the power to issue 5 kinds of writs. These are: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Writ of Prohibition, and Quo Warranto. Habeas Corpus is a writ related to personal liberty. This is issued in case of unlawful detainment. The meaning of habeas corpus is ‘produce the body’. When a person feels he has been imprisoned for no fault of his, he can file this petition. Mandamus is issued to a lower court by the higher court. It can also be issued to government officers or institutions. This writ is issued to ask the concerned person to perform a duty he has failed to perform. Certiorari is issued by a higher court directing the lower court to re-examine its decision. It is issued when the decision by a lower court violates natural justice. It is also issued in cases where procedure established by law has not been followed. The Writ of Prohibition is issued to prevent a lower court from proceeding in cases exceeding the jurisdiction of that particular court. Quo Warranto is issued to examine the legality of a position exercised by an official. It stops people from claiming positions that he is not entitled to hold. Public Interest Litigation is a distinctive jurisdiction taken over by the Supreme Court. A person can move the Supreme Court in issues concerning common interest. When there is a violation of fundamental right of an individual due to arbitrary laws or actions, he may move the the Supreme Court seeking a compensation. This article enables the court to relax the position of locus standi and allow any person to file a PIL petition. It is an expansion of the right to be heard. The burden of proving the common cause rests on the petitioner. This allowed any person file to PIL petition for the benefit of society. This is an exception to locus standi.

Article 32 contains four parts. The first clause guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings. Here, “appropriate” does not refer to the procedure.The position that Article 32 guarantees remedy was confirmed in the case of Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras (1950). It refers to the purpose of the proceeding. In some cases, even postcard and telegram have been accepted as appropriate proceedings. Letters are also permitted. The second part endows the Supreme Court with the power to issue different writs. The Supreme Court can choose to issue any writ that is appropriate. The third clause allows the parliament to grant powers to lower courts to protect fundamental rights. The fourth clause talks about an exceptional situation. It mentions a situation of emergency during which this right cannot be enforced and remains suspended. This remedy is not available in cases where alternative remedy is present. The right to constitutional remedies is an urgent remedy. Except in cases of emergency, any law in conflict with the right or the Supreme Court’s power becomes void. The scope of Article 32 is limited and restricted as compared to Article 226. Unlike Article32, Article 226 is not a fundamental right. There is some difference between the jurisdictions of the Supreme Court and the High Court when it comes to issuing writs. The Supreme Court’s power of issuing writs is restricted to violation of fundamental rights. Whereas, the High Court can issue writs even if ordinary laws are violated. The area of the High Courts is wider compared to the Supreme Court in this regard. This power is, however, restricted by territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s power to issue writs extends to the whole of India. Article 32 is restricted to fundamental rights under Part III. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court does not deal with any other issues. The writs issued by the Supreme Court are powerful and strong instruments.

I