Right To Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

On this page you will read detailed information about the Right to Constitutional Remedies in India.

You live in a democracy that constitutionally guarantees all citizens certain fundamental rights. When those rights are violated, you have legal recourse to seek remedies. Understanding the scope of constitutional remedies empowers you to uphold your guaranteed liberties. This discussion explores the right to constitutional remedies in India. Analyzing relevant constitutional provisions and judicial precedents clarifies the remedies available when fundamental rights are infringed upon. As an engaged citizen, comprehending these safeguards equips you to secure justice. Through examining constitutional remedies, you gain insight to promote constitutional values.

Understanding the Right to Constitutional Remedies

The Right to Constitutional Remedies in the Indian Constitution

The Constitution of India guarantees certain Fundamental Rights to all citizens. However, mere guaranteeing of rights is not enough. There must be effective remedies available to an individual if their rights are infringed upon. Article 32 of the Constitution provides for the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’ to enforce the Fundamental Rights.

Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts

The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to issue writs under Article 32 and Article 226 respectively. They can issue writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Any citizen can directly move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their Fundamental Rights. The High Courts have the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as other legal rights.

Importance of the Right to Constitutional Remedies

The Right to Constitutional Remedies is an important right granted by the Constitution. Without an effective remedy, the Fundamental Rights would be meaningless. The remedy provided under Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, and the Supreme Court has the power to issue necessary orders and writs for its enforcement. The writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court acts as a check on the arbitrary exercise of power by the State and protects the rights of citizens.

In conclusion, the right to constitutional remedies, especially the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts, is essential for protecting the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to citizens under the Constitution. It ensures that rights do not just exist on paper but can be enforced in practice. This right strengthens the democratic foundations of our republic and upholds the rule of law.

In the previous post, we had shared information about Understanding the Ilbert Bill and Its Impact, so read that post also.

Historical Background of the Right

The genesis of the right to constitutional remedies in India can be traced back to the Government of India Act, 1919. The Act allowed the Federal Court to issue certain writs, namely certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and habeas corpus. These writs enabled the court to keep the executive and other statutory bodies within the bounds of their authority.

The framers of the Indian Constitution sought to strengthen judicial review to protect the rights of citizens. Accordingly, Article 32 was incorporated to provide the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Additionally, Article 226 provides the power to issue writs to the High Courts for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as other legal rights.

The objective behind providing the right to constitutional remedies was to make them readily available to citizens for upholding their constitutionally guaranteed rights. The remedies act as a check on the arbitrary exercise of power by the executive and administrative authorities. They enable judicial scrutiny into the validity of laws and executive actions.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has delivered several landmark judgments broadening the scope of the right to constitutional remedies. Cases such as Menaka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) expanded the meaning of ‘life’ and ‘liberty’ to include several socio-economic rights within their ambit. This has strengthened the citizens’ right to approach the court for the violation or infringement of their basic rights.

In conclusion, the right to constitutional remedies, as enshrined in Articles 32 and 226, form an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. They uphold the rule of law and facilitate the enforcement of principles of natural justice. By providing access to justice, they empower citizens to participate actively in the democratic processes of the country.

Constitutional Provisions on the Right

The Constitution of India guarantees certain fundamental rights to the citizens of India. Among these rights, Article 32 provides the right to constitutional remedies. This includes the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.

Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies

Article 32 provides the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. It gives the right to constitutional remedies for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court has the power to issue directions or orders or writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The writs issued may include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.

Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court can issue writs under Article 32 for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The writs issued may include:

• Habeas corpus: A writ of habeas corpus is issued to produce a person who has been detained unlawfully. It is issued to review the lawfulness of a person’s imprisonment or detention.
• Mandamus: A writ of mandamus is issued to direct a public official or authority to perform their duty properly. It is issued to enforce the performance of public duties.
• Prohibition: A writ of prohibition is issued to prohibit a lower court or tribunal from proceeding with a case in excess of its jurisdiction. It is issued to prevent the unlawful exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
• Certiorari: A writ of certiorari is issued to quash the order already passed by an inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority. It is issued to bring up and quash the order of an inferior court.
• Quo Warranto: A writ of quo warranto is issued to inquire into the legality of a claim made by a person to a public office. It is issued to prevent illegal usurpation of public office by a person.

The Supreme Court has the power to enforce the fundamental rights of citizens through its writ jurisdiction. This provides an effective remedy to citizens against the violation of their fundamental rights. The writs can be issued not only against the state but also against private individuals and authorities. This makes the right to constitutional remedies a potent weapon in the hands of citizens.

Supreme Court Interpretation of the Right

Right to Constitutional Remedies

The Supreme Court of India has interpreted Article 32 to guarantee the right to constitutional remedies. This empowers citizens to directly approach the apex court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. The court has held that this right cannot be suspended except as provided in the Constitution.

Scope of the Right

The Supreme Court has given a liberal interpretation to the scope of Article 32. It has ruled that the right to constitutional remedies is a fundamental right and the apex court can issue appropriate writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The court has also held that Article 32 does not merely confer power on the Supreme Court but also imposes a duty to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.

Limitations on the Right

However, the Supreme Court has also recognised certain limitations on the right to constitutional remedies. It has ruled that Article 32 cannot be invoked when an alternative remedy is available, except in cases of violation of fundamental rights. The court has also held that it will not entertain frivolous petitions under Article 32 and will reject petitions that lack merit. Further, the right to constitutional remedies is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state to protect public interest.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in upholding civil liberties and fundamental rights of citizens through its interpretation of Article 32. By guaranteeing the right to constitutional remedies, the court has empowered citizens to defend their fundamental rights and hold the state accountable. However, the court has also recognised reasonable restrictions on this right to prevent its misuse and abuse.

Enforcement of the Right by High Courts

High Courts play an important role in enforcing the constitutional rights of citizens. As per Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, High Courts have the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

Original Jurisdiction

The High Courts have original jurisdiction in issuing prerogative writs. Any person can directly file a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226. The courts can issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto. These writs provide quick relief against the violation of Fundamental Rights.

Appellate Jurisdiction

The High Courts also have appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the subordinate courts under their territorial jurisdiction. If a person is aggrieved by the decision of a lower court, he can file an appeal before the High Court. The High Court can set aside the order of the lower court if it finds that it has violated the fundamental rights of the appellant.

Advisory Jurisdiction

Under Article 143, the President can refer any matter of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion. The opinion given by the Supreme Court is only advisory and not binding. However, it carries persuasive value and the government usually acts upon it. The objective is to avoid any dispute regarding the constitutionality of any executive action.

Supervisory Jurisdiction

The High Courts have general supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals functioning in their territorial jurisdiction. They can call for the records of any case pending before or disposed of by subordinate courts. If the High Court finds that the order of the lower court violates fundamental rights or suffers from a grave illegality, it can set aside such an order. This power of judicial review acts as an effective check on the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinate courts.

In summary, the High Courts play a pivotal role in the enforcement of fundamental rights. Through their extensive original, appellate, advisory and supervisory jurisdiction, the High Courts safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens against any infringement by the State or its agencies. Their judgments and decisions have a persuasive effect on the subordinate judiciary and executive.

Public Interest Litigation and the Right

The courts in India have taken an activist role in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens through public interest litigation (PIL). PIL allows citizens to file writ petitions in the Supreme Court and High Courts on behalf of underprivileged sections of society who are unable to approach the courts themselves.

The Supreme Court has held that where violations of fundamental rights are in question, public interest litigation is maintainable. The court can issue appropriate directions, orders or writs as it deems necessary in the interests of justice. This has enabled the court to monitor and direct executive action in areas such as environmental protection, protection of human rights, and good governance.

Relaxation of Locus Standi

The traditional rule of locus standi, which requires a person to show that they have suffered a legal injury to file a petition, has been relaxed by the Supreme Court for PIL. Any public-spirited citizen or social action group acting bona fide can file a PIL to highlight issues of public importance and secure justice for the disadvantaged sections. The court now permits representative standing, where an individual or organization can file a PIL on behalf of the poor, downtrodden or disabled who cannot approach the court themselves due to poverty, ignorance or incapacity.

Monitoring Government Action

The Supreme Court and High Courts have used PIL to issue directions and monitor the functioning of the executive and government agencies. They have directed governments and municipal authorities to implement environmental laws, provide basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation, primary health care, and primary education to the poor. The courts have also used PIL to curb corruption, uphold the rights of prisoners, child laborers, bonded laborers, and protect people from police atrocities.

PIL has thus emerged as an important instrument for promoting transparency, accountability and good governance in India. By relaxing the traditional rules of standing and taking an activist role, the higher judiciary has upheld the right of citizens to constitutional remedies and ensured access to justice for the disadvantaged sections.

Limitations on the Right

While Article 32 provides citizens the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of their fundamental rights, this right is not absolute and comes with certain limitations.

The Supreme Court has the discretion to not entertain frivolous or vexatious petitions under Article 32. Petitions that are trivial, unjustified or meant solely to harass or embarrass the opposite party may be dismissed by the Court. The Court can also impose exemplary costs on the petitioners in such cases to deter filing of frivolous petitions.

Article 32 petitions can be filed only for enforcement of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Economic or social rights or rights under any other law cannot be enforced under Article 32. The Supreme Court cannot issue directions or orders contrary to any statutory provision.

The right to constitutional remedies is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state to protect national security, public order, decency or morality. Any petition seeking enforcement of a fundamental right in violation of laws imposing reasonable restrictions can be dismissed.

While the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 is very wide, it is not unlimited. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of fact by lower courts or tribunals. It cannot re-appreciate evidence to come to its own findings of fact. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to examining whether there has been a violation of fundamental rights or miscarriage of justice.

Though the Supreme Court has wide powers under Article 32, it exercises self-restraint and follows established principles of law and procedure. The Court recognizes that there are limitations on judicial review and legislative or executive policy decisions cannot be easily interfered. Policy matters are best left to the discretion of the concerned wings of the government.

The right to move the Supreme Court for constitutional remedies, though a fundamental right, is subject to inherent limitations in the law and judicial process. The apex court exercises this jurisdiction judiciously, keeping in mind principles of restraint and deference to the other organs of the state.

Recent Controversies Related to the Right

The right to constitutional remedies has been at the center of debate in recent years. Several controversial court cases have brought the scope and implementation of this right into question.

In early 2021, the Supreme Court heard a petition alleging violations of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 32. However, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the issues raised did not constitute a matter of public interest and were instead “private grievances.” This narrow interpretation of Article 32 led to concerns that the court was limiting citizens’ ability to seek constitutional remedies for the violation of their basic rights.

Another controversial decision came in late 2020, when the Supreme Court ruled that the right to constitutional remedies could not be invoked for “frivolous” public interest litigations. The court stated that such litigation wasted judicial time and resources. Critics argue this ruling discourages citizens from filing legitimate PILs out of fear they will be perceived as “frivolous.” There are also concerns the government may use this ruling to crack down on PILs that expose government wrongdoing or demand policy changes.

To address these controversies, legal experts have proposed amendments clarifying the scope of the right to constitutional remedies. Some argue Article 32 should be amended to specify that any citizen can approach the Supreme Court to enforce their fundamental rights. Others suggest establishing a permanent commission to review rejected PILs and petitions, to prevent meritorious cases from being dismissed.

Despite recent controversies, the right to constitutional remedies remains a crucial safeguard of citizens’ fundamental rights. However, its scope and implementation require clarification to ensure this right is accessible to all citizens seeking justice and accountability. With the proper amendments and oversight, this right can continue protecting the basic liberties guaranteed to all Indians under the Constitution.

FAQs on the Right to Constitutional Remedies

The right to constitutional remedies allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court and High Courts to get relief and remedy against the violation of their fundamental rights. Here are some frequently asked questions on this important right:

In summary, the right to constitutional remedies is a crucial fundamental right that empowers citizens to uphold their fundamental rights and hold the government and its institutions accountable. By understanding the procedures and remedies available under this right, citizens can use it effectively to defend their rights.

Conclusion

As citizens of the world’s largest democracy, we must educate ourselves on the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The right to constitutional remedies empowers us to hold the government accountable and uphold the principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity enshrined in the Preamble. When our rights are infringed upon, we can approach the Supreme Court and High Courts directly for remedy. This allows the citizens to participate in strengthening the democratic fabric of the nation. However, awareness regarding such constitutional safeguards remains low. We must spread legal literacy, especially among marginalized sections of society. Our collective endeavor can realize the Constitution’s vision of securing justice – social, economic and political – to all citizens.

Disclaimer

The information and services on this website are not intended to and shall not be used as legal advice. You should consult a Legal Professional for any legal or solicited advice. While we have good faith and our own independent research to every information listed on the website and do our best to ensure that the data provided is accurate. However, we do not guarantee the information provided is accurate and make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information on the Site. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL WE HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE SITE. YOUR USE OF THE SITE AND YOUR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION ON THE SITE IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. Comments on this website are the sole responsibility of their writers so the accuracy, completeness, veracity, honesty, factuality and politeness of comments are not guaranteed.

So friends, today we talked about Right Against Exploitation, hope you liked our post.

If you liked the information about Right Against Exploitation, then definitely share this article with your friends.

---

Knowing about laws can make you feel super smart ! If you find value in the content you may consider joining our not for profit Legal Community ! You can ask unlimited questions on WhatsApp and get answers. You can DM or send your name & number to 8208309918 on WhatsApp

---