Regarding the constitutional framework of the Indian judicial system, which of the following statements accurately describes a key jurisdictional distinction between the Supreme Court and High Courts in India?
- The writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is broader in subject-matter scope than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32, as High Courts can issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and ordinary legal rights.Cevap
- BThe Supreme Court possesses wider subject-matter writ jurisdiction under Article 32 than High Courts under Article 226, allowing it to issue writs for statutory violations beyond Fundamental Rights.
- CAn individual's right to move a High Court under Article 226 is itself a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution, making it mandatory for the High Court to grant relief in every petition.
- DHigh Courts lack judicial review authority over administrative tribunals created by state legislation, which fall under the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the President of India.
Cevap
The writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is broader in subject-matter scope than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32, as High Courts can issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and ordinary legal rights.
Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Under Article 226, High Courts can issue writs for enforcing Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose' (ordinary legal rights). Therefore, in terms of subject-matter scope, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is wider than that of the Supreme Court.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Writ Jurisdiction Comparison (Article 32 vs Article 226)
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s