Examkin

Soru

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

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional jurisdiction and scope of writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India:

1. The Supreme Court cannot refuse to entertain an application under Article 32 on the ground that an alternative legal remedy is available, because the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a guaranteed Fundamental Right.
2. The High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is wider in subject-matter scope than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32.
3. The judicial review power of High Courts to issue writs under Article 226 forms an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be excluded even by a constitutional amendment.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

  1. A
    1 and 2 only
  2. B
    2 and 3 only
  3. C
    1 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3Cevap

Cevap

Statements 1, 2, and 3 are all correct.
All three statements are constitutionally sound. Statement 1 is correct because Article 32 is itself a guaranteed fundamental right, meaning the Supreme Court cannot deny relief on the grounds of alternative remedies. Statement 2 is correct because High Courts can issue writs for both fundamental rights and legal rights ('for any other purpose'). Statement 3 is correct as the 7-judge bench in L. Chandra Kumar (1997) declared judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 to be part of the unamendable basic structure of the Constitution.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Evaluate Statement 1 regarding Article 32 status
Statement 1 is correct. Article 32 is enshrined in Part III of the Constitution as a Fundamental Right. Therefore, accessing the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a constitutional duty of the court, and an alternative remedy cannot be a bar to entertaining the petition.
Article 32 provides a guaranteed remedy, whereas High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary.
2
Evaluate Statement 2 regarding subject-matter scope of Articles 32 and 226
Statement 2 is correct. Article 32 can be invoked exclusively for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 226 can be invoked for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose' (ordinary legal rights). Thus, the subject-matter scope of High Courts is wider.
The phrase 'for any other purpose' expands Article 226 beyond Fundamental Rights.
3
Evaluate Statement 3 regarding basic structure doctrine and Article 226
Statement 3 is correct. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), a 7-judge Constitution Bench held that the power of judicial review over legislative actions vested in High Courts under Article 226 (and Supreme Court under Article 32) forms an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Constitutional amendments excluding judicial review under Article 226 are unconstitutional.

Anahtar Kavram

Writ Jurisdiction and Basic Structure Doctrine (Articles 32 & 226)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

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

Bu konudan daha fazla soru