Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumFundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties

Which of the following statements is correct regarding the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

  1. The High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other purpose, whereas the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.Answer
  2. B
    The territorial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to issue writs is narrower than that of a single High Court.
  3. C
    Article 32 is a Fundamental Right under Part III, whereas Article 226 is a Directive Principle of State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution.
  4. D
    The Supreme Court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 at its discretion, whereas a High Court cannot refuse a writ petition under Article 226.

Answer

The High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other purpose, whereas the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs only for enforcing Fundamental Rights. Under Article 226, High Courts can issue writs for enforcing Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose', meaning ordinary statutory and legal rights. Hence, the High Court's writ jurisdiction is broader in terms of subject matter.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the subject-matter scope of Article 32.
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs exclusively for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
Article 32 is specifically designed as a Constitutional Remedy for Fundamental Rights violations.
2
Analyze the subject-matter scope of Article 226.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and 'for any other purpose' (enforcement of ordinary legal rights).
The phrase 'for any other purpose' broadens the remedial scope of High Courts beyond Part III rights.
3
Compare territorial extent and discretionary nature of both courts.
The Supreme Court has pan-India territorial jurisdiction and cannot decline an Article 32 petition, whereas High Courts have state-bound territorial jurisdiction and discretionary writ powers under Article 226.
This confirms that the option highlighting the High Court's wider subject-matter writ jurisdiction is correct.

Key Concept

Writ Jurisdiction Comparison (Article 32 vs Article 226)
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties

More questions from this topic