Regarding constitutional remedies under the Indian Constitution, which of the following statements accurately distinguishes the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 from that of High Courts under Article 226?
- High Courts can issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and other ordinary legal rights, whereas the Supreme Court can issue writs under Article 32 strictly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.Cevap
- BThe writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is wider in subject-matter scope than that of High Courts under Article 226 because it extends to non-fundamental statutory rights.
- CAn aggrieved party must exhaust remedies under Article 226 in the High Court before directly approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32.
- DThe right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 can be suspended by an executive order issued by a State Governor during local security emergencies.
Cevap
High Courts can issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and other ordinary legal rights, whereas the Supreme Court can issue writs under Article 32 strictly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
The statement claiming that High Courts can issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and other ordinary legal rights is correct. Article 32 allows writ petitions exclusively for enforcing Part III Fundamental Rights, while Article 226 permits High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal rights ('for any other purpose').
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Writ Jurisdiction Comparison (Article 32 vs Article 226)