DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

ARTICLE 32

SUBJECT

LEGAL LANGUAGE

NAME OF THE FACULTY

ARVINDHNATH TRIPATI SIR

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE - GURUGUBELLI PADMAJA

ROLL NO 2016037

SEMESTER 2

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me through

the course of the project. I would like to thank our teacher who encouraged, guide and
supported me for doing this project. And sincerely great full to them for sharing their truthfull
and illuminated views on the issues related to the project.

I express my warm thanks to Arvindh nath tripati sir for her support and guideness to the
project without her help it would be difficult task for us to complete. I am unable to find my
words to express my thanks. It was my pleasure to have you as my teacher and guider
through out this project.

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT4
AIM OF THE STUDY ...5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
HYPOTHESIS5
SCOPE OF THE STUDY...5
INTRODUCTION.................6
HISTORY OF ARTICLE 32...7
ARTICLE 32 HEARING....10
ROLE OF SUPREAM COURT AND HIGH COURT .12
LIMITATIONS,].13
AUTHORITIES AMENABLE OF WRIT JURISDICTIONOF SUPREAM COURT.13
CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES.15
IMPORTANCE..18
RELERED CASES.19
CONCLUSION...20
BIBILIOGRAPHY..20

3
 ABSTRACT

Topic: Article 32

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of India. It lays down the framework defining
fundamental political principles, establishes the structure, procedures, powers and duties of
government institutions and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles and the duties of
citizens. It is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world.
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar is considered to be the chief architect of this great
constitution.Fundamental Rights which are provided by the constitution are the most
important features of the Indian Constitution.

Article 32 is the most important article in the whole constitution. Dr. B.R. Ambedkarcalled
this article as the very Soul of the Constitution. The SC ruled that Article 32 is a basic
feature of constitution and cant be restricted or taken away by an amendment to the
constitution. It helps citizens to approach the Supreme Court or High Court for enforcement
of Fundamental Rights in case of their violation. It also empowers the Supreme Courtto issue
various writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto.

In the recent years, the Supreme Court had been very aggressively using the Article 32 in
order to enforce fundamental rights especially during 1980s and 1990s. The Court had
passed various judgements in order to protect the fundamental rights such as M.C. Mehta. V.
Union of India etc. The author in this project would like to discuss the various aspects of
Article 32. The author would also discuss some of the landmark judgements regarding the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights by the Apex Court in this project.

4
AIM OF THE PROJECT:

The aim of the project is to know about the article 32 how the remedies of the constitution
were processing the society.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The method of research adopted for this particular project and study is doctrinal in nature. A
doctrinal method has been used as it is more viable for the topic in question. A doctrinal
method proves to be more productive than any other method which can be adopted. As the
project is on ARTICLE 32 it is more appropriate to go by empirical approach.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

The researcher used both primary as well as secondary sources for gathering the information

Primary sources and secondary sources like books, archival material, web sites, articles etc.

HYPOTHESIS:

The hypothesis was lies in the History of article 32, hearing, constitutional remedies,
limitations and exceptions, role of supreme court and high court ,related cases.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The scope of the study is limited upto the article 32. The scope is limited upto the web and
the internet and book sources.

5
ARTICLE 32

RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES

INTRODUCTION:

The Constitution of India has granted us several Fundamental Rights as well as safeguards
against their violations. The citizens get to exercise these rights with an option of taking the
help of judiciary in case their rights are violated. Since enlistment of rights (no matter how
meticulously they are explained in the Constitution) is not always enough, the Right to
Constitutional Remedies ensures that these they are respected and valued.

FROM THE CONSTITUTION:

(1) The right to move the Supreme Courtby appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part 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 rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.

ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION-CONCEPT & PURPOSE

According to Article 32, when an individual feels that he has been unduly deprived of his
fundamental rights, he can move the Supreme Court and seek justice. Since the apex court is
considered the protector and guarantor of the Fundamental Rights, it is given the authority
to issue directions or orders for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by the
Constitution.

6
Under Article 32, the Parliament can also empower any other court to exercise the power of
Supreme Court within the local limits of its jurisdiction. The right to constitutional
remedies guaranteed by this Article cant be suspended unless by some constitutional
amendments. To sum up the benefits of Article 32 for citizens, it must be said that the law
provides an assured remedy for enforcing the Fundamental Rights as the person can directly
approach the Supreme Court without having to follow a lengthier process of moving lower
courts.

BARGAINING HISTORY OF ARTICLE 32 SUBCONTRACTING

The struggle to limit, or eliminate, subcontracting which has the power to decimate the
bargaining unit, began when the Union was first created in its present form. The
bargaining history of Article 32 lends weight to the Unions proposed revisions. Initially, the
Postal Reorganization Act itself favors an assessment on contracting out geared toward what
is most economic and efficient. The Postal Service Unions which were the predecessors to the
APWU conducted coordinated bargaining for their first collective bargaining agreement
under the Postal Reorganization Act in 1971. At that time, prior to merger, the National
Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Employees (NFPOMVE) negotiated on behalf of
drivers and vehicle maintenance employees. In July 1971, the NFPOMVE merged into and
became the Motor Vehicle Service Division (MVS) of the APWU.

THE 1971-1973 AGREEMENT

In the 1971 Negotiations, the first collective bargaining negotiations between the re-
organized Postal Service and unions representing its employees, the issue of contracting out
was presented at the bargaining table by Chester Parrish. Parrish who had been President of
the NFPOMVE, and became President of the Motor Vehicle Craft, drafted a proposal which
would have prohibited all contracting out orsubcontracting. The parties failed to agree on the
Unions proposal forbidding all contracting out and subcontracting, and instead agreed to
form a joint study team survey existing outside contracts. The main direction for this joint
study team was that if MVS proved it could perform the work being considered for
contracting out even a penny cheaper, that work would be assigned to MVS.

7
The19731975 AGREEMENT

The 1973 Agreement between the parties added Article 32, SUBCONTRACTING, for the
first time. Although, as stated, the Unions initially proposed a total ban on contracting out of
any Postal Work, the Article 32 agreed upon in 1973 did not include this ban. The agreed to
provision was the Postal Services counter-proposal, presented to the Unions on June 18,
1973, and accepted by the Unions the following day. On June 23, 1973, the parties entered
into the agreed upon provision as the new Article 32, numbering each paragraph as a separate
section
SECTION 1 READ:
The employer will give due consideration to public interest, cost, efficiency, availability of
equipment, and qualifications of employees when evaluating the need
to subcontract. This language still exists as Article 32.1.A of the 1998-2000 Agreement.

SECTION 2 PROVIDED:
The employer will give advance notification to the Unions at the National level when
subcontracting which will have a significant impact on bargaining unit work is being
considered and will meet to consider the Unions views on minimizing such impact.
No final decision on whether or not such work will be contracted out will be made until the
matter is discussed with the Unions.

THE 1975-1978 AGREEMENT

In 1975, the Unions again sought to ban all contracting out of Postal work, but were
unsuccessful in achieving that end. The parties did succeed in adding a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the selection of the proper mode
for highway movement of mail. Section 1 of the MOU survives in the current
Agreement as Article 32.2.A.According to Union Negotiator Chester Parrish,
the MOU was necessary because, before the MOU, if the Union wanted to bid on a Highway
Contract Route (HCR) it had to make a specific request for information and hope that the
Postal Service responded in a timely enough fashion so as to allow the Union to make a bid.
The MOU establishes a structure which, although modified in some detail over the years,
remains in effect in the current Agreement. The most important features of this structure,

8
established in 1975 Negotiations, are the strict time frames to which the Postal Service must
adhere in providing data, and the commitment to refrain from awarding contract
when the Union challenges it. (Present Article 32.2.B.)The terms of the MOU required the
Postal Service to submit information to the Union at least 60 days prior to the scheduled
installation of the service at issue, required the Union to request a meeting within 30 days of
having been provided that information; and requires the Union to submit a documented
analysis of the information supplied in advance of an actual meeting with the Postal Service

THE 1978-1981 AGREEMENT

The parties in the 1978 Agreement were able to agree to refine the time frames required by
Article 32, Section 4.B. Thus, the parties agreed to mandate a full 30 days for the Union to
review the information from the Postal Service, and the exchange of basic cost analyses no
later than 10 days in advance of the actual meeting...

THE 1981-1984 AGREEMENT

In 1981 Negotiations, the Mail handlers Union chose to bargain separately, and the APWU
and the NALC, as the Joint Bargaining Committee (JBC) negotiated with the Postal
Service. The JBC, in a proposal dated April 22, 1981, proposed to amend Article 32 to
prohibit any contracting out in the future. Further, no current
contracts were to be renewed; and upon expiration, the work was to be turned over to the
appropriate bargaining unit employees.

9
ARTICLE 32 HEARING

An Article 32 hearing is a proceeding under the United States Uniform Code of Military
Justice , similar to that of a preliminary hearing in civilian law. Its name is derived from
UCMJ section VII ("Trial Procedure") Article 32(10 U.S.C. 832), which mandates the
hearing.

The UCMJ specifies several different levels of formality with which infractions can be dealt.
The most serious is a general court-martial.. An article 32 hearing is required before a
defendant can be referred to a general court-martial, in order to determine whether there is
enough evidence to merit a general court-martial. Offenders in the US military may face non-
judicial punishment a summary court-martial ,special court-martial, general court-martial, or
administrative separation. A commanding officer, in the role as court-martial convening
authority, will consult with the command judge advocate for advice on case dispostition;
factors to be considered include, inter alia, the relevant statutory and case law, the
seriousness of the offenses, the strength or weakness of each element of the case, the
promotion of good order and discipline, and the commander's desire for case disposition.

An investigation is normally directed when it appears the charges are of such a serious nature
that trial by general court-martial may be warranted. The commander directing an
investigation under Article 32 details a commissioned officer as investigating officer who
will conduct the investigation and make a report of conclusions and recommendations. This
officer is never the accuser, trial counsel (judge advocate prosecutor), nor in the accused's
chain of command. This officer may or may not have any legal training, although the use of
military attorneys (judge advocates) is recommended and common within service practice. If
the investigating officer is not a lawyer, he or she may seek legal advice from an impartial

source, but may not obtain such advice from counsel for any party.

An investigative hearing is scheduled as soon as reasonably possible after the investigating

officers appointment. The hearing is normally attended by the investigating officer, the
accused and the defense counsel. The commander will ordinarily detail counsel to represent
the United States, and in some cases a court reporter and an interpreter; these appointments
are, in practical reality, duty assignments made by the criminal law branch of the command

10
judge advocate's office. Ordinarily, this investigative hearing is open to the public and the
media.

The investigating officer will, generally, review all non-testimonial evidence and then
proceed to examination of witnesses. Except for a limited set of rules on privileges,
interrogation, and the rape-shield rule (MRE 412), the military rules of evidence do not
apply at this investigative hearing. This does not mean, however, that the investigating officer
ignores evidentiary issues. The investigating officer will comment on all evidentiary issues
that are critical to a cases disposition. All testimony is taken under oath or affirmation,
except that an accused may make an unsworn statement.

The defense is given wide latitude in cross-examining witnesses. As of 2013 in cases where
sexual assault is alleged some critics allege an extremely intrusive and aggressive cross
examination of the victim is permitted, a practice which has been cited by critics of the
military's handling of sexual assault in the United States military .In one case involving a
midshipmen at the Navy Academy for 30 hours over several days, about their past sexual
behavior.If the commander details an attorney to represent the United States, this government
representative will normally conduct a direct examination of the government witnesses. This
is followed by cross-examination by the defence and examination by the investigating officer
upon completion of questioning by both counsel. Likewise, if a defence witness is called, the
defense counsel will normally conduct a direct examination followed by a government cross-
examination. After redirect examination by the defence counsel, or completion of questioning
by both counsel, the investigating officer may conduct additional examination. The exact
procedures to be followed in the hearing are not specified in either the Uniform Code of
Military Justice or the Manual for Court-Martial.

11
ROLE OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS

Apart from the Supreme Court, the High Courts also have the power to protect fundamental
rights. Like the apex court, they also can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental
rights of the citizens. In case of rights violation, the both courts can issue five different writs
Certiorari, Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto.

Under Certiorari writ, the apex court or the high courts can quash the order passed by a lower
court. It happens when a court passes an order acting against the natural justice or theres an
error of judgment. The Habeas Corpus writ is issued to prevent arbitrary arrest and detention.
Under this writ, the detained person must be produced before a court. The Mandamus
(meaning command) is issued mainly for the public servants who are accused of
dereliction of duty. To prevent inferior courts from overstepping their jurisdiction, the
Prohibition writ is issued by the Supreme Court or the High Courts. Quo warranto (meaning
by what right) is issued to determine the legality of a persons claim to a public office. In
cases of usurpation, the courts can announced the office to be vacant.

While Supreme Court can issue writs only in case of infringement of a fundamental right
mentioned in the part III of the Constitution, the High Courts power to issue writs extends to
cases of breaching of ordinary law. Hence, High Courts enjoy a larger ambit. Alternatively,
their power of issuing writs is limited to their jurisdiction, which is not the case with the
Supreme Court.

AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 32

The 42ndAmendment Act had included Anti-Freedom clauses in Article 32. It was the time
of internal emergency when such an amendment was passed to curtail both directly and
directly the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to review the
enforcement of fundamental rights. Immediately after the emergency was revoked, the Article
32A was repealed by passing the 43rdamendment of the Indian Constitution. Following the
amendment, the Supreme Court regained power to quash state laws. The amendment also
empowered the High Courts to question constitutional validity of Central Laws.

LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE 32

12
During certain circumstances, the privileges that citizens ought to get under Article 32 are
negated. The right to constitutional remedies is denied when the President of India proclaims
emergency. According to Article 352, the fundamental rights to the citizens remain
suspended. Similarly, the Article 358 gives Parliament the authority to curtail the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution.

IS SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING THE SPIRIT OF ARTICLE 32?

There had been instances wherein the petitions under Article 32 were not entertained by the
Supreme Court. Leading news dailies have pointed out the fact that grievances under this
Article are listened to only when they come from celebrities or when incidents are reported in
public. Whats even more alarming is the substantial decline in Article 32 petitions, which
can be attributed to the courts reluctance to entertain such petitions.

AUTHORITIES AMENABLE TO WRIT JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT

Government and the Parliament of India, Governments and Legislature of States and
Local Governments

Government Departmental undertakings

Agencies incorporated by statute

Agencies registered under statute such as the Companies Act, Societies Registration
Act

Courts

Private individuals and bodies

Article 32 of Constitution of India. From Law Notes IN Article 32 of Constitution of India

deals with Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.

From the Constitution(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings
for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. The Supreme Court

13
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 rights conferred by this Part. Without prejudice to the
powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the
powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2). The right guaranteed by this
article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Authorities amendable to Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court. Government and the

Parliament of India, Governments and Legislature of States and Local Governments.
Government Departmental undertakings. Agencies incorporated by statute. Agencies
registered under statute such as the Companies Act, Societies Registration Act.

Courts, Private individuals and bodies. Agencies registered under statute are amenable only if
the authorities are instrumentalities or agencies of the Government. Court of Law are not
mentioned but they do have a chance to pose a threat to fundamental rights.

Article 32(1) in The Constitution Of India 1949 (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
8 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that
year. Union cabinet is collectively responsible to the House of the People as per Article 75(3).
The Constitution of India is federal in nature but unitary in spirit. The common features of a
federation such as written Constitution. In addition to article 13, articles 32, 226 and 227
provide a constitutional basis to judicial review in India. [57]. Constitution of India; Indian
Penal Code; CrPC; In Force. Corruption: Benami Transactions; Black Money; Corruption;
Lokpal; Mines & Minerals Act.

Supreme Court can interfere in such cases. Private individuals and bodies are not amenable to
this Article and hence are outside the Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to this Article.
Notes. The Supreme Court is made the protector and guarantor of the Fundamental Rights. It
is not obligatory for the court to follow adversary system on cases related to this Article and
'appropriate proceedings' are sufficient. The remedy sought must be correlated to one of the
fundamental rights sought to be enforced. Locus standi: Open for those whose fundamental

14
rights are infringed. This was later relaxed to allow Public Interest Litigation cases thus
allowing any 'public spirited citizen' to file the case.

Article 32 of Constitution of India.From LawNotes.in. Jump to: navigation, search. Home

Indian Law Constitution of India Article 32. Article 32 of Constitution of India deals with
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part. Contents. 1 From the Constitution;
2 Authorities amenable to Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court. Article 32 itself being a
fundamental right. Right to Constitutional Remedy Significance of Article 32
NirmalenduBikashRakshit A mere enumeration of rights, even if it is meticulously worded is
not enough. ciples of Indian Constitution, p 136). In other words, an individual cannot,
during. articles of the Constitution, Article 32 was the most important, because it provided for
a guaranteed remedy for the violation of any of the rights.

RELATED CASES / RECENT CASES / CASE LAWS:

ABP Pvt Ltd and Another v Union of India and Others Writ Petition (Civil) No 2. OF 2. 01.
1, Civil Original Jurisdiction Supreme Court of India judgement dated February 7, 2. Dharam
Pal v State of Haryana and Others, Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction, And Supreme Court of
India judgement dated January 2. Parivartan Kendra v Union of India and Others Writ
Petition 8.

Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition Supreme Court of India judgment dated December
7 Dr Ram Lakhan Singh v State Government of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary Writ
Petition.andSupreme Court of India judgment dated November 1. Dr Sandeep s/ o
SadashivraoKansurkar and Others v Union of India and Others, Civil Original Jurisdiction,
Writ Petition.

Supreme Court of India judgement dated March 2. Section 6.6A of the Information
Technology Act, 2.Kisan Shankar Kathore v ArunDattatraySawant and Others, Civil Appeal
Jurisdiction, Civil Appeal No 4.

M C Mehta v Union of India, AIR 1. SC 1. 08. 7. The case widened the scope of public
interest litigation to social interest litigation. SC's power to grant remedial relief includes
power to award compensation in appropriate cases. Delhi Judicial Services Association v
State of Gujarat: SC has sent five police officers including an IPS officer for criminal

15
contempt of court when they arrested a Chief Judicial Magistrate, handcuffed him and tied
him with a thick rope like an animal. Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v Union of
India: SC has given guidelines for rehabilitation and compensation for women who are
working women and assaulted by seven army personnel. Gaurav Jain v Union of India:
Direction for protection of women from prostitution and rehabilitation of their children.
Common Cause v Union of India: Case on malpractices, malfunctioning and inadequacies of
blood banks in the country.

Agencies registered under statute are amenable only if the authorities are instrumentalities or
agencies of the Government.

Court of Law are not mentioned but they do have a chance to pose a threat to fundamental
rights. Supreme Court can interfere in such cases.

Private individuals and bodies are not amenable to this Article and hence are outside the
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to this Article.

CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of India provides various Fundamental rights to all its citizens. The
provisions for proper enforcement of these Fundamental rights are also given in the
Constitution. In simple terms, enforcement of the Fundamental rights is safeguarded with the
help of 5 prerogative Writs. Writs are nothing but written orders of the court ordering a party
to whom it is addressed to perform or cease from performing a specified act. So Article 32
empowers the Supreme Court while Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue writs
against any authority of the State inorder to enforce the Fundamental rights.

The State is defined under Article 12 of the Constitution and includes the Government and
the Parliament of India, Government and the Legislatures of the States and all other
authorities within the Indian Territory or under the control of Government of India. Other
authorities is an expression that includes business organizations and citizens.

Let us now understand the five types of Writs:

16
 1. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
One of the valuable writs for personal liberty is Habeas Corpus which means You
may have the body. If any person is detained in prison or a private custody without
legal justification; this writ is issued to the authority confining such person, to
produce him/her before the Court. The Court intervenes here and asks the authority to
provide the reasons for such detention and if there is no justification, the person
detained is set free. The applicant for this writ can either be the person in detention or
any person acting on his/her behalf to protect his/her liberty. This writ provides for
immediate relief in case of unlawful detention.

For instance : the first Habeas Corpus casein India was filed in Kerala where P. Rajan, a
college student was arrested by the Kerala police and he died in custody unable to bear the
torture. His father Mr T.V. EacharaWarrier filed a Habeas Corpus writ and it was proved that
Rajan died in police custody.

2. WRIT OF CERTIORARI:

The meaning of Certiorari is to be certified. This writ is issued when any lower court or a
tribunal exercises a wrongful jurisdiction and decides the case. The party affected can
move this writ to higher courts like the High Court or the Supreme Court. Writ of
Certiorari can be issued to the quasi judicial or subordinate courts when they act:

In excess or without any jurisdiction

In contravention to the principles of Natural justice

In violation of the prescribed procedure as established by law

Resulting in an error of judgment apparent on the face of it.

The writ of Prohibition and Writ of Certiorari are similar except for the time of their issuance.
The former is issued before the passing of the order by the lower court while the latter is
issued after passing of the order.

3. WRIT OF MANDAMUS:

17
 The term Mandamus in Latin means We command. This writ is issued to a public
official who refrains from performing his public duties which he is obliged to do. This
writ can also be issued to any public authority (including the government, corporation and
Court) commits an act which is detrimental to the welfare of the general public. This writ
however cannot be issued against the President and the Governor.

4. WRIT OF QUO-WARRANTO:

By what warrants? is the literal meaning of the term Quo-Warranto. The issuance of
this writ takes place to restrain a person from acting in public office to which he is not
entitled. In simple words, if a person occupies a public office without being qualified for
the office, then this writ is issued to restrain the concerned authority from discharging his
duties. The High Court of that particular state has the authority to issue this writ and
direct the person to vacate the office in question. The writ of Quo-Warranto is issued in 3
instances when

The office in question is a public office and is substantive in nature.

The State or the Constitution has created the office

The public servant (respondent) should have asserted a claim on the office.

5.WRIT OF PROHIBITION:

Writ of Prohibition is issued to a subordinate to cease doing something which it is not

supposed to do as per law. Normally, this writ is issued by the superior courts to the lower
courts when the lower court tries to exceed the limit of jurisdiction vested in it. Likewise, if
the court acts in absence of jurisdiction, this writ can be issued. Once this writ is issued the
lower court is under an obligation to stop its proceedings. One cannot issue this writ against a
public official who does not have judicial or quasi judicial powers. This writ is issued before
the lower court passes an order.

IMPORTANCE OF ARTICLE 32:

Article 32 was called the soul of the constitution and very heart of it by Dr.Ambedkar.
Supreme Court has included it in basic structure doctrine. Further, it is made clear that right
to move to Supreme Court cannot be suspended except otherwise provided by the

18
Constitution. This implies that this right suspended during a national emergency under article
359.
Article 32 makes the Supreme Court the defender and guarantor of the fundamental rights.
Further, power to issue writs comes under original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This
means that a person may approach SC directly for remedy rather than by way of appeal.
Article 32 can be invoked only to get a remedy related to fundamental rights. It is not there
for any other constitutional or legal right for which different laws are available.
Comparison of Supreme Court and High Court in Issuing writs
Similarities:
Power of issuing writs comes under original jurisdiction (to hear the matter at first instance)
of both Supreme Court and High Courts. An aggrieved person has option to move any of
them
Differences:
While Supreme Court has power to issue writs via article 32, High Courts have this
power via article 226
While Supreme Court has power to issue writs for enforcement of ONLY
Fundamental rights, High Courts can issue writs for enforcement of fundamental
rights as well as any other matter also. Thus, High Court has a wider jurisdiction
from Supreme Court in matter of issuing writs.
Supreme Court can issue a writ against any person or authority within the territory of
India while high court can issue such writ under its own territorial jurisdiction. Thus,
High courts writ jurisdiction is narrower in terms of territorial extent
. Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction mainly because article
32 itself is a fundamental right and supreme court is guarantor or defender of
fundamental rights. However, for high courts, exercising the power to issue writs is
discretionary.

RELATED CASES / RECENT CASES / CASE LAWS

Pratibha Ramesh Patel v Union of India and Others, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ
Petition No 35 OF 2016, Supreme Court of India judgment dated March 9, 2016:
Having invoked a constitutional remedy before the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner cannot, under Law, file another petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India on identical set of facts for identical reliefs

19
 Meera Santosh Pal and Others v Union of India and Others, Civil Original
Jurisdiction, Writ Petition No 17 OF 2017, Supreme Court of India judgment dated
January 16, 2017 on medical termination of pregnancy of a 24-week foetus

Gautam Jain v Union of India and Another, Criminal Arelaxed to allow Public Interest
Litigation cases thus allowing any 'public spirited

Appellate jurisdiction, criminal appeal no 2281 of 2014, supreme court of

indiajudgment dated January 4, 2017

Yash Pal and Others v Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No 616 OF
2013, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition No 616 OF 2013, Supreme Court of
India judgment dated January 2, 2017

Ashiq Hussain Faktoo v Union of India and Others, Criminal Original Jurisdiction,
Writ Petition (Criminal) No 46 OF 2008, Supreme Court of India judgment dated
August 30, 2016

ABP Pvt Ltd and Another v Union of India and Others Writ Petition (Civil) No 246
OF 2011, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition No 246 OF 2011, Supreme Court
of India judgement dated February 7, 2014.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court is made the protector and guarantor of the Fundamental Rights.It is not
obligatory for the court to follow adversary system on cases related to this Article and
'appropriate proceedings' are sufficient. The remedy sought must be correlated to one of the
fundamental rights sought to be enforced Locus standi: Open for those whose fundamental
rights are infringed. This was later citizen' to file the case.

BIBILIOGRAPHY:

Constitution law of India- J.N Pandey

Constitution law of India-M.P Jain

20
21