Article 32 of Constitution of India

The Constitution of India is a remarkable document, laying down the fundamental framework that governs the country. One of its most crucial provisions is Article 32, which guarantees the right to constitutional remedies. This Article empowers citizens to seek direct redressal from the Supreme Court if their fundamental rights are violated. Often hailed as the “heart and soul of the Constitution” by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Article 32 acts as the guardian and protector of individual liberties. Without this provision, fundamental rights would remain mere promises without practical enforceability.

This article aims to explore Article 32 in a detailed and comprehensive manner. We will discuss its legal provisions, significance, the nature of writ jurisdiction, types of writs, judicial interpretations, differences with Article 226, and its role in India’s constitutional democracy.

Historical Context and Importance of Article 32

During the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr B.R. Ambedkar emphasised the indispensability of Article 32. He stated that if he had to choose one article without which the Constitution would be a nullity, it would be Article 32. His vision was clear: Fundamental Rights must be enforceable and protected by an accessible and effective remedy.

In colonial India, citizens had little recourse against state actions violating their liberties. Article 32 was thus introduced to empower the Supreme Court to act swiftly and decisively to protect these rights.

Text and Legal Framework of Article 32

Article 32 consists of four clauses that set out the right and mechanism to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights:

This legal foundation underlines the supremacy of the Supreme Court in safeguarding fundamental rights. The provision not only confers a right but also grants an effective remedy.

Nature and Scope of Article 32 of Constitution of India

Remedial Fundamental Right

Article 32 is often described as a remedial right, meaning it provides the mechanism to enforce the substantive fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. It is not itself a fundamental right conferring any substantive liberty or entitlement but is the procedural right that enables access to justice.

Part of the Basic Structure

The Supreme Court, through various judgements including Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), has held that Article 32 is part of the Constitution’s basic structure. This means it cannot be abrogated or amended in a manner that destroys its essence. Its preservation is critical to the rule of law and constitutionalism in India.

Direct Access to Supreme Court

Unlike ordinary legal remedies that require exhausting lower courts, Article 32 empowers an aggrieved person to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights. This feature is vital for urgent relief and protection of individual liberties.

Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 32 of Constitution of India

Article 32 confers upon the Supreme Court the power to issue certain writs to enforce fundamental rights. These writs have their origin in English common law and are crucial instruments for judicial review and protection of rights.

Types of Writs

The Supreme Court can issue the following five types of writs under Article 32:

The Role of Writs

Writs are powerful judicial tools to correct wrongs, prevent abuse of power, and uphold constitutional governance. Through these writs, the courts ensure that government and its instrumentalities act within legal bounds.

Scope and Limitations of Article 32 of Constitution of India

Discretionary Nature of Jurisdiction

While Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court, the exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary. The Court balances various considerations such as:

• Locus Standi: Whether the petitioner has the right or sufficient interest to seek the remedy. This principle has been relaxed through the doctrine of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
• Alternative Remedies: If other efficacious legal remedies are available (e.g., approaching a tribunal or lower courts), the Supreme Court may refuse to entertain the writ petition.
• Res Judicata: Matters that have been finally decided by courts are generally not reopened, except in exceptional circumstances such as habeas corpus cases.
• Delay and Laches: Undue or unexplained delay in filing writ petitions can lead to dismissal, as justice delayed may be justice denied.

Restrictions and Exceptions

• Article 32 only applies to enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution). It cannot be invoked for non-fundamental rights such as contractual disputes or private law matters.
• During a National Emergency, enforcement under Article 32 can be suspended as per Article 359, although core rights such as Article 20 and Article 21 continue to be enforceable.
• The writs cannot be issued against private individuals or bodies unless they perform functions akin to the State (under Article 12).

Expansion of Article 32 Through Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

The ambit of Article 32 expanded significantly with the development of PIL in the 1980s. Traditionally, only an aggrieved person could file a writ petition. However, PIL allows any public-spirited individual or organisation to file petitions in the interest of disadvantaged or marginalised groups who cannot approach the courts themselves.

Landmark PIL Cases

• A.B.S.K. Sangh v. Union of India (1981) introduced the concept of locus standi in public interest.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) widened access to courts by holding that any “public-spirited citizen” could file petitions to protect fundamental rights.

Impact of PIL

PIL under Article 32 has been instrumental in advancing social justice, environmental protection, human rights, and transparency. It reflects the judiciary’s proactive role in upholding constitutional values.

Article 32 vs Article 226: The High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. There are some key differences between Articles 32 and 226:

While Article 32 confers a fundamental right to approach the Supreme Court, Article 226 is a constitutional power conferred on High Courts with greater discretion and a wider scope.

Landmark Judgements on Article 32 of Constitution of India

Over the years, the Supreme Court has reinforced the sanctity and scope of Article 32 through landmark rulings.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Broadened the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), reinforcing the role of Article 32 in protecting such rights.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Declared Article 32 part of the basic structure, immune from amendment that dilutes judicial review.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Cemented the basic structure doctrine, with Article 32 at its core.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Issued guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace through PIL under Article 32.
• MC Mehta Cases: Used PIL under Article 32 to enforce environmental laws and protect citizens’ right to a healthy environment.

These cases demonstrate how Article 32 functions as a dynamic instrument of constitutional justice.

Suspension of Article 32 During Emergencies

Article 32’s enforcement can be suspended during a national emergency, as per Article 359. However, it is important to understand that:

• Suspension affects enforcement of rights, not the rights themselves.
• Core rights such as protection against double jeopardy (Article 20) and right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) continue to be enforceable.
• The Supreme Court in the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (Habeas Corpus Case) controversially upheld emergency suspension of Article 32, a judgement later widely criticised.

Procedural Flexibility and Judicial Activism

Article 32 petitions are not bound by rigid procedural formalities. Courts have adopted an inquisitorial approach to promote access to justice. The Supreme Court has treated letters and postcards as writ petitions when fundamental rights were at stake, especially for the poor and marginalised.

However, to prevent misuse via judicial activism, the Court imposes certain standards:

• Clear disclosure of facts and grounds.
• Avoidance of frivolous or vexatious litigation.
• Imposition of costs where necessary to deter abuse of process.

Limitations and Safeguards to Article 32 of Constitution of India

Despite its wide reach, Article 32 has limitations to balance judicial intervention and prevent judicial overreach:

• It does not entertain matters of private law or contractual disputes.
• The presence of an alternative efficacious remedy bars the writ petition.
• Delay in approaching courts weakens the case for writ relief.
• Courts discourage multiplicity of proceedings and repetitive petitions.

Conclusion

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is indeed the “heart and soul” of India’s constitutional framework. It provides citizens with an effective, direct, and powerful remedy to protect fundamental rights against any infringement. The Supreme Court, through its writ jurisdiction, safeguards democracy, upholds the rule of law, and ensures that the promises of the Constitution translate into reality.

Researcher: Surbhi Kumari (Amity Law School, Patna)

Author: Aishwarya Agrawal