Recently in the news, there was a statement from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) during a hearing reviewing a plea. He indicated that the court aims to reduce the number of petitions filed under Article 32. This has ignited discussion around the enforcement and interpretation of this crucial constitutional provision.
The Position of the Chief Justice of India
The CJI expressed concern over a spate of Article 32 petitions and stated that the High Court also holds the power to uphold fundamental rights under article 226. The primary objective of this comment is to encourage the use of local courts for petition filing without immediately resorting to the Supreme Court.
Understanding Article 32 of the Constitution
Article 32 is a pillar of the Constitution, outlining the right to constitutional remedies. This allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the implementation of fundamental rights recognised by the Constitution. It provides the Supreme Court with the authority to issue directions, orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo-warranto, for enforcing any of the fundamental rights.
The right to approach the Supreme Court can only be suspended as outlined in the constitution. For example, the President can suspend this right during a national emergency under the provisions of Article 359.
The Role of Article 32 in Enforcement of Fundamental Rights
If fundamental rights are violated, the victim has the option of approaching either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly. This is because the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is original, meaning a citizen can directly approach the Supreme Court, but not exclusive, allowing for concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court.
Notably, the availability of alternate remedies does not inhibit relief under Article 32 since the right to move the Supreme Court itself is a fundamental right. This was confirmed in the Chandra Kumar case in 1997, where the Supreme Court ruled that the writ jurisdiction of both courts constitutes a part of the constitution’s basic structure.
Transferring Cases from High Courts to Supreme Court
In recent times, the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to transfer certain high-profile cases from the High Courts. For instance, the court transferred a case involving the national capital’s Central Vista project from the Delhi High Court. The petitioners in this case had not requested such a transfer, which raises concerns around the erosion of an available stage of appeal for the petitioners.
The Supreme Court also conveyed its concerns over many matters involving personal liberty, where it believes High Courts are not exercising their jurisdiction appropriately as constitutional courts.
Exploring Article 226 of the Constitution
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto for the enforcement of citizens’ fundamental rights and any other purpose. The phrase ‘any other purpose’ refers to enforcing an ordinary legal right. Thus, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is wider than that of the Supreme Court, as it extends to possible breaches of ordinary legal rights.
The High Court can issue writs to any person, authority or government, within or beyond its territorial jurisdiction, provided the cause of action emanates from within its territory. This provision vests considerable authority in the High Courts to uphold constitutional validity across India.
