Introduction
The judiciary plays a crucial role in a democracy by ensuring the proper functioning of government authorities and protecting the rights of citizens, as well as upholding the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Constitution of India is designed to establish a robust, independent, and well-organized judiciary.
Within this framework, Article 32 and Article 226 hold particular significance as they empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to take action against government bodies in instances of rights violations and infringements on citizens' liberties. These articles grant the judiciary the authority to issue writs, which are legal orders that command specific actions or prohibitions.
Article 32
Article 32 of the Constitution of India holds a significant position, described as the 'heart and soul of the constitution' by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar. It is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, known as the 'right to constitutional remedies,' which serves as a safeguard for other fundamental rights against violations. Essentially, if any individual's fundamental right is infringed upon by the government, Article 32 empowers that person to approach the Supreme Court to seek the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
Under Article 32(1), individuals have the right to approach the Supreme Court directly to claim or enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India.
Article 32(2) grants the Supreme Court the authority to issue various directives, orders, or writs, including Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto, to enforce those fundamental rights.
Additionally, Article 32(3) empowers the parliament to delegate the power to issue orders, directions, and writs to any other court within the territorial jurisdiction of India.
It is important to note that Article 32(4) explicitly states that the right to constitutional remedy, as provided by Article 32, cannot be suspended unless expressly provided for by the Constitution itself.
Important Judgements on Article 32
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution holds a prominent position in the basic structure of the Constitution, as established in the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar (Union) v. Union of India. This provision is an essential component of the Constitution of India and plays a pivotal role in safeguarding citizens' fundamental rights.
The applicability of Article 32 was clarified in the case of Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India, where it was held that Article 32 is relevant and can be invoked in cases involving the enforcement of fundamental rights. However, if the matter does not pertain to the enforcement of fundamental rights, Article 32 will not be applicable.
The scope of Article 32 was further defined in the case of Nain Sukh Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where it was established that its scope is limited to cases of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Thus, Article 32 can only be utilized when there is an infringement of fundamental rights.
In an important decision in the case of PUDR v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 32 is not limited to governmental actions alone. It can be invoked against private individuals as well, ensuring that fundamental rights are protected from infringement by any entity, public or private.
Article 226
Under Part V of the Constitution of India, Article 226 bestows High Courts with the authority to issue orders, directions, and writs such as Habeas corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto.
According to Article 226(1), each High Court within the territory of India possesses the power to issue orders, directions, and writs to any individual or authority, including the Government, within its own local jurisdiction for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as other legal rights.
Article 226(2) further extends the power of High Courts to issue orders, directions, and writs beyond their local jurisdiction. This extension applies when the cause of action lies wholly or partly within the local jurisdiction of the concerned High Court.
Regarding interim orders issued under Article 226, Article 226(3) sets forth specific requirements to protect the rights of both parties. If an interim order, such as an injunction or stay, is passed without providing a copy of the petition and evidential documents to the respondent or giving them an opportunity to be heard, the respondent has the right to approach the High Court to cancel the interim order. The High Court must decide on this application within two weeks of receiving it or within two weeks from the date on which the other party receives it, whichever is later.
Finally, Article 226(4) emphasizes that the power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 does not derogate from the powers granted to the Supreme Court under Article 32(2). Both Article 226 and Article 32(2) coexist and serve as essential avenues for seeking redressal and enforcing rights under the Indian Constitution.
Important Judgement on Article 226
In the landmark case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, it was established that Article 226 of the Constitution of India possesses a significantly broader scope compared to Article 32. This is because Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue orders, directions, and writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for the enforcement of legal rights granted to disadvantaged individuals through specific statutes. These legal rights are deemed equally significant as fundamental rights.
Major Difference between Article 32 and Article 226
 |
|||
| |
|||
 |
|||
|
Conclusion To sum up, while Article 226 has a broader scope as it allows the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights granted by the Constitution or statutes. Nevertheless, Article 32, known as the heart and soul of the Constitution, holds special significance as a fundamental right that cannot be refused. The Supreme Court's decisions under Article 32 take precedence over High Courts' decisions under Article 226, ensuring consistent protection of citizens' rights and upholding the Constitution's provisions. Both articles play crucial roles in safeguarding the rights of individuals and maintaining the integrity of the Constitution. | |||