Examkin

Question

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

Which of the following statements accurately reflects the constitutional boundary governing the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction while entertaining a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 compared to a High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226?

  1. The Supreme Court can entertain a PIL under Article 32 strictly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas High Courts can entertain PILs under Article 226 for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal rights.Answer
  2. B
    Both the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 possess identical constitutional scope to entertain PILs for enforcing both Fundamental Rights and non-fundamental statutory rights.
  3. C
    A Public Interest Litigation seeking redress for public injury must be directly instituted under Article 131 as part of the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
  4. D
    The Supreme Court can entertain a PIL under Article 32 only after obtaining advisory approval from the President of India under Article 143.

Answer

The Supreme Court can entertain a PIL under Article 32 strictly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas High Courts can entertain PILs under Article 226 for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal rights.
Article 32 provides a constitutional remedy exclusively for the enforcement of Part III Fundamental Rights. Consequently, any Public Interest Litigation (PIL) moved directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32 must demonstrate an infringement of a Fundamental Right. In contrast, Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose', giving High Courts a broader jurisdictional scope for enforcing ordinary legal and statutory rights via PIL.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the constitutional scope of Article 32 for the Supreme Court.
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs solely for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution.
The language of Article 32 explicitly restricts remedies to rights conferred by Part III.
2
Analyze the constitutional scope of Article 226 for High Courts.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs 'for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose'.
The phrase 'for any other purpose' extends High Court writ jurisdiction to non-fundamental legal and statutory rights.
3
Compare the scope of writ jurisdiction under both articles in the context of PIL.
High Court writ jurisdiction is subject-wise broader than Supreme Court writ jurisdiction, even though Supreme Court rulings carry nationwide territorial applicability under Article 141.
A PIL directly admitted in the Supreme Court must involve an alleged infringement of a Fundamental Right, whereas a High Court PIL can enforce statutory duties or legal rights.

Key Concept

Writ Jurisdiction and Constitutional Boundaries of Article 32 vs Article 226
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

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

More questions from this topic