UNIT VI: Right to Constitutional Remedies: Article 32

The Constitution of India is a powerful tool for protecting the rights of every citizen. Among its essential components, Article 32, known as the "Right to Constitutional Remedies," stands out as a vital provision. It gives individuals the opportunity to seek judicial remedies when their fundamental rights are infringed upon. This article will break down the significance of Article 32, its associated writs, and its interpretation in court, while also comparing it with Article 226. Additionally, we will explore how Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plays a role in ensuring justice for the broader community.

Writ Jurisdiction – Meaning, Nature, and Significance

Writ jurisdiction refers to the powers held by the High Courts and the Supreme Court to issue writs, which are legal orders compelling certain actions or prohibiting specific actions, as specified in Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.

The ability to issue writs is crucial for maintaining the rule of law and delivering justice. It enables judicial intervention when someone's rights have been violated. This mechanism is not only a legal recourse but also serves as a lifeline for individuals in need.

Writs fulfill several purposes:

• Protection of Rights: Writs act as protective measures, allowing individuals to seek redress for violations of their rights. For instance, in 2021, the Supreme Court's issuance of a writ of mandamus led to the timely fulfillment of public health obligations during a Covid-19 surge.
• Ensuring Accountability: Writs such as mandamus can compel government agencies to fulfill their statutory duties. For example, a High Court issued a writ mandamus to the municipal corporation in Delhi, directing it to undertake necessary sanitation work amid a dengue outbreak.

Given their significance, the application of writ jurisdiction has expanded over time through judicial interpretation, with courts adapting to the needs of society.

Article 32 and the Different Kinds of Writs

Article 32 is a cornerstone of citizens' rights, allowing them to approach the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are at stake. It provides for several types of writs:

1. Habeas Corpus: This writ secures the release of individuals detained unlawfully. A notable case involved a citizen unlawfully detained for over 90 days due to bureaucratic negligence, leading the Supreme Court to intervene successfully.
2. Mandamus: This writ compels public authorities to perform their legal duties. For instance, in a 2018 case, the Supreme Court issued a mandamus requiring a state government to fulfill its responsibility to provide mid-day meals to school children.
3. Prohibition: Prepared by a higher court, this writ prevents lower courts from overstepping their powers.
4. Certiorari: This writ allows higher courts to review decisions of lower judicial bodies, ensuring fair processes were observed.
5. Quo Warranto: It challenges the legality of a person's claim to a public office, safeguarding the rights of citizens to have lawful representatives.

Each writ serves an essential purpose in protecting individual rights and maintaining checks on government authority, reflecting the justice principles found in the Constitution.

Article 226 – Its Nature and Comparison with Article 32

While Article 32 enables access to the Supreme Court, Article 226 provides similar powers to High Courts. The key differences between these articles lie in their scope and jurisdiction.

Nature of Article 226

Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights and for other reasons. This broader scope grants High Courts significant power to influence administrative actions, enhancing their role in protecting individual rights.

Comparing Article 32 and Article 226

1. Court Hierarchy: Article 32 pertains solely to the Supreme Court, while Article 226 applies to High Courts.
2. Scope of Writs: Article 32 focuses on fundamental rights, whereas Article 226 permits issuing writs for other legal rights, providing a wider range of judicial remedies.
3. Nature of Remedies: Remedies under Article 32 are designed to be stricter, while Article 226 exhibits more interpretative flexibility regarding legal rights.
4. Accessibility: Article 226 is often more accessible because High Courts can be found in many states, offering citizens a convenient way to seek justice.

Together, Articles 32 and 226 strengthen the judicial framework in India, ensuring citizens have multiple pathways to enforce their rights.

Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) emerged as a powerful tool designed to provide justice for underprivileged communities. Unlike typical lawsuits where parties have direct stakes, PIL allows anyone to file a case on behalf of those who cannot advocate for themselves.

Importance of PIL

1. Access to Justice: PILs enable wider segments of society to seek justice, making the legal system more inclusive. For example, a PIL resulted in the landmark Supreme Court ruling mandating free and compulsory education for children aged six to fourteen.
2. Social Justice: PILs often tackle significant social issues, ensuring that the Constitution's equality principle is upheld.
3. Judicial Activism: The judiciary has used PILs to step in where the government has failed, ensuring that issues like pollution and workers’ rights receive proper attention.
4. Evolving Interpretation: Courts broadened PIL scope to cover topics like environmental concerns and human rights violations, making the legal system responsive to current societal needs.

Judicial Interpretation of PIL

The judiciary's interpretation of PIL has evolved, marked by significant judgments. A notable example is the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan case, where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines against workplace sexual harassment.

These interpretations exemplify how courts actively pursue social justice while ensuring the essence of Article 32 is honored, even in unprecedented circumstances.

summarized table for UNIT VI: Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32 & Judicial Interpretation):

Topic	Key Points
Right to Constitutional Remedies (Art. 32)	- Referred to as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar). - Provides the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Writ Jurisdiction: Meaning, Nature & Significance	- Special jurisdiction of constitutional courts (SC and HCs) to issue writs for protection of rights. - Ensures judicial review of administrative and legislative actions. - Central to the Rule of Law.
Types of Writs under Article 32	1. Habeas Corpus – To release a person unlawfully detained. 2. Mandamus – To command a public authority to perform its duty. 3. Prohibition – Issued by higher court to prevent lower court from exceeding jurisdiction. 4. Certiorari – To quash an order passed by a lower court without jurisdiction. 5. Quo Warranto – To challenge a person’s right to hold public office.
Article 226 vs. Article 32	- Art. 32: Enforce only Fundamental Rights; available only against the State; can be directly filed before SC. - Art. 226: Enforce both Fundamental and other legal rights; wider in scope; filed in High Court. - Art. 226 is discretionary, Art. 32 is a guaranteed right.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)	- Concept evolved through judicial innovation (especially post-1980s). - Allows access to justice for marginalized groups. - Relaxed locus standi (anyone can approach court for public cause). - Often used under Article 32 (SC) or 226 (HC). - Important cases: SP Gupta v. Union of India, People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan.

The Path Forward

The Right to Constitutional Remedies in Article 32 is a crucial instrument for protecting fundamental rights and promoting justice in India. The different writs associated with this article, along with those in Article 226, establish a solid foundation for judicial oversight and accountability.

Furthermore, the growth and evolution of Public Interest Litigation underscore the judiciary's dedication to championing the rights of marginalized groups and fostering social equity.

By comprehending the intricacies of Article 32 and its judicial interpretations, we can better navigate the broader legal landscape concerning constitutional rights. As society progresses, the continuous application of these legal provisions will be vital in ensuring justice remains accessible to every individual.

In a true democracy, it is essential that constitutional rights are not only observed but also actively defended as fundamental values that bind society together.