A citizen’s right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has been given such importance because the State, if left without checks and balances, has the potential to become a tyrannical institution that can take the civil and individual liberties of its people for granted, Justice Krishna Murari said.

Article 32 gives individuals the right to move the Supreme Court for justice when they feel their fundamental rights have been infringed. 

The Supreme Court judge made these observations while delivering a split verdict in a case where a question arose about whether an individual can approach the top court under Article 32 for settlement of a dispute under the Customs Act.

What is Article 32?

In Part III of the Constitution, Article 32 deals with Right to Constitutional Remedies.

It states that: 

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) 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.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Article which has been described as the heart and soul of the Constitution

A statement of B.R. Ambedkar has been specifically reiterated in several judgments of the Supreme Court to emphasise the unique significance attributed to Article 32 in our constitutional scheme.

“If I was asked to name any particular Article in this Constitution as the most important, an Article without which this Constitution would be a nullity, I could not refer to any other Article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it,” Ambedkar had said during the Constituent Assembly debates in 1948. 

Approaching SC and HC

When it comes to violation of fundamental rights, an individual can approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.

Article 226 deals with the power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of fundamental rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them. 

• Writ of Habeas Corpus: A habeas corpus writ is filed to seek directions for a person under arrest to be produced before the court, which will rule on the nature, legal or illegal, of his/her detention.

• Writ of Mandamus: The term means “we command”. This writ is usually directed to public authorities to perform their duties which they have refused to perform.

• Writ Prohibition: It is to forbid or to stop called as “stay order”. It is issued to any inferior court or quasi-judicial body but not against legislative or administrative body. 

• Writ of Quo Warranto: The term means “by what authority”. It is issued to restrain a person from holding a public office.

• Writ of Certiorari: The term means “to be certified”. It is issued for quashing the order of any inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial body.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store