Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaIndian Judiciary: Supreme Court, High Courts, Judicial Review, and PIL

The constitutional framework of India equips both the Supreme Court and High Courts with the authority to issue writs, yet their scope and constitutional nature differ. Which of the following statements correctly highlights a fundamental distinction between the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and that of a High Court under Article 226?

  1. A High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any ordinary legal right, whereas the Supreme Court under Article 32 issues writs specifically for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.Cevap
  2. B
    The Supreme Court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 if an adequate alternative legal remedy exists, whereas a High Court under Article 226 is constitutionally obligated to entertain every petition.
  3. C
    The territorial jurisdiction of a High Court for issuing writs automatically extends throughout the entire territory of India, whereas the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction is restricted to the specific state in which it sits.
  4. D
    Article 32 is a statutory provision created by an Act of Parliament, while Article 226 is a Fundamental Right enshrined within Part III of the Constitution.

Cevap

A High Court can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any ordinary legal right, whereas the Supreme Court under Article 32 issues writs specifically for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
The correct statement accurately captures the subject-matter distinction between the two constitutional remedies. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs solely for enforcing Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III. In contrast, Article 226 explicitly authorizes High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose'—meaning the enforcement of ordinary statutory and legal rights.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the subject-matter scope of Article 32 and Article 226.
Article 32 allows writ issuance specifically for Part III rights (Fundamental Rights). Article 226 adds the phrase 'and for any other purpose', extending High Court writ powers to legal rights beyond Fundamental Rights.
This establishes that the High Court's writ jurisdiction has a wider subject-matter scope than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32.
2
Evaluate the constitutional nature of the remedy under both articles.
Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, making the Supreme Court's jurisdiction non-discretionary for Fundamental Right violations. Article 226 is a constitutional remedy in Part VI, making High Court jurisdiction discretionary.
This helps rule out statements suggesting the Supreme Court can refuse Article 32 relief due to alternative legal remedies.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinction between Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Court (Article 226) Writ Jurisdiction
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

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

Bu konudan daha fazla soru