Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumIndian Judiciary: Supreme Court, High Courts, Judicial Review, and PIL

Under the Constitution of India, the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 differs in several aspects from the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32. Which of the following statements correctly highlights a fundamental constitutional distinction between the two?

  1. High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other legal rights, whereas the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is limited strictly to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.Answer
  2. B
    The Supreme Court may refuse to entertain a writ petition under Article 32 on the ground of alternative legal remedies being available, whereas High Courts cannot refuse a petition filed under Article 226.
  3. C
    The territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to issue writs under Article 226 is wider than the nationwide territorial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32.
  4. D
    Article 226 is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution, whereas Article 32 is a constitutional power placed outside Part III.

Answer

High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other legal rights, whereas the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is limited strictly to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
The correct answer highlights that High Courts have broader subject-matter writ jurisdiction under Article 226 because they can issue writs for fundamental rights as well as ordinary legal rights ('for any other purpose'). In contrast, Article 32 limits the Supreme Court's writ power strictly to enforcing Fundamental Rights.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the subject-matter scope of Article 32 versus Article 226.
Article 32 allows the Supreme Court to issue writs exclusively for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights 'and for any other purpose' (ordinary legal rights).
The expression 'for any other purpose' widens the remedy under Article 226 compared to Article 32.
2
Evaluate the constitutional nature of the remedy under both articles.
Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right in Part III, making the right to approach the Supreme Court mandatory for fundamental rights violations. Article 226 is in Part VI and provides discretionary writ powers to High Courts.
The Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32, whereas High Court writ remedies under Article 226 are discretionary.
3
Compare territorial jurisdiction bounds.
The Supreme Court can issue writs against any person or authority throughout India, whereas High Court writs are limited to their regional territory (or where the cause of action arises).
Territorial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is broader, but subject-matter jurisdiction of the High Court is broader.

Key Concept

Scope and Distinction of Writ Jurisdictions under Article 32 and Article 226
Rate this question

Topics

Indian Judiciary: Supreme Court, High Courts, Judicial Review, and PIL

More questions from this topic