Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional remedies and writ jurisdictions under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
1. The Supreme Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other ordinary legal right.
2. The High Court can refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if an adequate alternative legal remedy is available.
3. Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, whereas Article 226 is a constitutional provision conferring discretionary jurisdiction.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- A1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 onlyCevap
- C1 and 3 only
- D1, 2 and 3
Cevap
Statements 2 and 3 are correct. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is limited to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights alone, making it narrower in purpose than the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226, which extends to 'any other purpose' (ordinary legal rights). Moreover, because Article 32 is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right itself, the Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction, whereas the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary.
The correct option is the combination of statements 2 and 3. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court's power to issue writs is exclusively restricted to enforcing Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. In contrast, Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose' (enforcement of ordinary statutory and legal rights). Furthermore, because Article 32 is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right, the Supreme Court cannot refuse a petitioner seeking remedy for violation of Part III rights, whereas High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Writ Jurisdiction Comparison (Article 32 vs Article 226)