Discuss the right to constitution remedies under art 32 of the constitution.

Explain in detail the writ jurisdiction of supreme court under article 32 of the Indian
constitution.
Art-32 is the very soul of the constitution and the very heart of the constitution. Explain.
Introduction:
1. Constitutional Remedies refer to the legal mechanisms provided by the constitution
of a country to safeguard and enforce the fundamental rights of individuals.
2. The Right to Constitutional Remedies is a Fundamental Right enshrined in the
Constitution of India.
Right to Constitutional Remedies: Provisions under the Indian Constitution:
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution of India confers the Right to Constitutional
Remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen.
It contains the following four provisions in this regard:
(1) The right to move to the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights is
guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights.
(3) The Parliament can empower any other court to issue directions, orders, and writs of
all kinds, without prejudicing the same powers of the Supreme Court.
o Here, the phrase ‘any other court’ does not include the High Court,
because Article 226 has already conferred this power on the High Court.
(4) The right to move to the Supreme Court shall not be suspended, except as otherwise
provided for by the Constitution.
o President can suspend the right to move to any court for the enforcement of
Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency.
The following points are to be noted with respect things the Right to Constitutional
Remedies:
 This right makes the right to get the Fundamental Rights protected itself a
Fundamental Right, thus making the Fundamental Rights real.
 Its significance made Dr. B.R. Ambedkar hail this right as the “heart and soul” of the
Constitution.
  This provision makes the Supreme Court the defender and guarantor of Fundamental
Rights.
 It vests the Supreme Court with ‘Original’ and ‘Wide’, but ‘Not Exclusive’ powers to
enforce Fundamental Rights.
What is a Writ?
Writs are written orders issued by the Supreme Court of India to provide constitutional
remedies to protect the fundamental rights of citizens from a violation.Writs of India are
borrowed from English law where they are known as ‘Prerogative writs’
What is a Writ Petition?
A writ petition is essentially a court petition for extraordinary review, asking a court to
intervene in a lower court’s decision. Under the Indian legal system, jurisdiction to issue
‘prerogative writs’ is given to the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Judicature of all
Indian states. Parts of the law relating to writs are outlined in the Constitution of India.
Type of Writs: In India, the Supreme Court, the High Courts or any other courts empowered
for the purpose can issue the following five types of writs:
1. Habeas Corpus

The literal meaning of this term is – ‘to have the body of’.It is an order issued by the
court to a person who has detained another person to produce the body of the latter
before it. The court then examines the cause and legality of detention. It would set the
detained person free if the detention was found to be illegal. Thus, this writ is
the bulwark of individual liberty against arbitrary detention.
 This writ can be issued against both public authorities and private individuals.
However, it is not issued in cases where:
o detention is lawful,
o the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court,
o detention is by a competent court,
o detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court.
In the case of, Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) - The Supreme Court held that habeas
corpus is available to prevent illegal detention.
2. Mandamus

The literal meaning of this term is – ‘we command’.It is a command issued by the court to a
public official, asking him to perform his official duties that he has failed or refused to
perform.It can be issued to a public official, a public body, a corporation, an inferior court,
a tribunal, or the government for the same purpose.
  This writ cannot be issued:
o against a private individual or body,
o to enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force,
o when the duty is discretionary in nature,
o to enforce a contractual obligation,
o against the President of India, the State Governors, and the Chief Justice of a
High Court.
In the case of, State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
(2010) - The court emphasized the use of mandamus to compel government action to
protect fundamental rights.
3. Prohibition

The literal meaning of this term is – ‘to forbid’.It is issued by a higher court to a lower court
or tribunal to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping a jurisdiction
that it does not possess.Thus, while the writ of ‘Mandamus’ directs activity, the writ of
‘Prohibition’ directs inactivity.The writ of prohibition can be issued only against judicial and
quasi-judicial bodies and cannot be issued against administrative authorities, legislative
bodies, or private entities.
In the case of State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari (1955) - The court held that
prohibition lies to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction.
4. Certiorari

The literal meaning of this term is – ‘to be certified’ or ‘to be informed’.It is issued by
a higher court to a lower court or tribunal either to transfer a case pending with the latter
to itself or to squash the order of the latter in a case.This writ is issued on the grounds
of excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction or error of law.Thus, while the writ of
‘Prohibition’ is only preventive, the writ of ‘Certiorari’ is both preventive as well as
curative.It can be issued against judicial, quasi-judicial, as well as administrative authorities,
but not available against legislative bodies, private individuals or bodies, etc.
In the case of Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi (1943) - The court
explained that certiorari is used to quash orders of inferior courts or tribunals.
5. Quo-Warranto

The literal meaning of this term is – ‘by what authority or warrant’.It is issued by the
court to inquire into the legality of a claim of a person to a public office.Hence, it prevents
illegal usurpation of public office by a person.Unlike the other writs, this can be sought by
any interested person and not necessarily by the aggrieved person.This writ can be issued
only in the case of substantial public office of a permanent character created by a statute or
by the Constitution. It cannot be issued in the case of ministerial or private offices.
In the case of Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division (1958) - The court
clarified that quo warranto can be used to inquire into the authority of a person holding a
public office.
Conclusion: the Right to Constitutional Remedies stands as a cornerstone of democracy and
justice. By enabling individuals to seek redressal of violations of their fundamental rights,
they foster a just and equitable society. Thus, the Right to Constitutional Remedies serves
as a bulwark against tyranny and injustice, embodying the essence of a vibrant and inclusive
democracy.