Examkin

Question

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

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India:

1. The writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 is broader in scope than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32 because High Courts can issue writs for both the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other ordinary legal purpose.
2. The advisory opinion tendered by the Supreme Court to the President under Article 143 is binding on the President and carries the weight of a judicial decree.
3. The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a guaranteed Fundamental Right in Part III, whereas approaching a High Court under Article 226 is a constitutional right but not a Fundamental Right.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. A
    1 and 2 only
  2. 1 and 3 onlyAnswer
  3. C
    2 and 3 only
  4. D
    1, 2 and 3

Answer

The correct combination is '1 and 3 only'. Statement 1 is correct because Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and 'any other purpose' (ordinary legal rights), whereas Article 32 restricts the Supreme Court's writ power strictly to Fundamental Rights. Statement 3 is correct because Article 32 is located in Part III of the Constitution, making remedy through the Apex Court a Fundamental Right itself, unlike Article 226. Statement 2 is incorrect because advisory opinions under Article 143 are purely consultative and non-binding.
Statements 1 and 3 are constitutionally accurate. Under Article 226, High Courts can issue writs for fundamental rights as well as ordinary legal rights, giving them broader subject-matter writ jurisdiction than the Supreme Court under Article 32. Furthermore, Article 32 is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right within Part III, whereas Article 226 is a constitutional provision outside Part III. Statement 2 is false because Article 143 advisory opinions are consultative and non-binding.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate Statement 1 regarding Article 226 vs Article 32 writ scope.
Statement 1 is verified as CORRECT.
Article 32 can be invoked exclusively for enforcing Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 226 covers Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal/statutory rights ('for any other purpose').
2
Evaluate Statement 2 regarding advisory jurisdiction under Article 143.
Statement 2 is verified as INCORRECT.
An advisory opinion given by the Supreme Court under Article 143 is purely advisory and consultative in nature; it does not constitute a judicial order or binding decision on the President.
3
Evaluate Statement 3 regarding constitutional status of Article 32 vs Article 226.
Statement 3 is verified as CORRECT.
Article 32 is part of Part III (Fundamental Rights), so seeking remedy via Article 32 is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right. Article 226 resides in Part VI and is a constitutional right, but not a Fundamental Right.

Key Concept

Writ Jurisdiction (Art 32 vs 226) and Advisory Jurisdiction (Art 143) of the Indian Judiciary
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

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

More questions from this topic