Constitutional remedies under Article 32
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution: Overview
Article 32 guarantees the right to constitutional remedies, allowing individuals to move the Supreme Court directly if their fundamental rights are violated.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the "heart and soul" of the Constitution because it ensures that fundamental rights are enforceable.
The Supreme Court has the power to issue directions or writs such as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto to enforce fundamental rights.
Types of Writs under Article 32:
Habeas Corpus: To release a person unlawfully detained or imprisoned.
Mandamus: To command a public authority to perform its duty.
Prohibition: To prohibit lower courts or tribunals from acting beyond their jurisdiction.
Certiorari: To quash the order passed by a lower court or authority.
Quo-Warranto: To challenge the authority of a person holding a public office.
Important Case Laws under Article 32
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Significance: This landmark case is famous for the "Basic Structure Doctrine."
Details: Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala government's attempts to impose restrictions on the management of religious property.
Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend the "basic structure" of the Constitution, even under Article 368.
Relevance to Article 32: The case affirmed the power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 to review constitutional amendments and protect fundamental rights.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Significance: Expanded the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and the enforcement mechanism under Article 32.
Details: Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded without giving her a hearing.
Outcome: The Court held that the procedure established by law must be "just, fair, and reasonable."
Relevance: It showed that Article 32 is not limited to the enforcement of explicitly mentioned fundamental rights but also those derived from them, like the right to fair procedure.
3. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) - Habeas Corpus Case
Significance: One of the most controversial cases related to fundamental rights during the Emergency.
Details: The question was whether a person detained under Emergency laws could file a writ of habeas corpus when fundamental rights like personal liberty were suspended.
Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that during an Emergency, even the right to move the court for habeas corpus was suspended.
Relevance: Although this decision was heavily criticized, it highlighted the scope and limitations of Article 32 under extreme conditions.
4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Significance: Reinforced the Basic Structure doctrine and the importance of judicial review.
Details: Challenged amendments that gave Parliament unlimited power, undermining judicial review.
Outcome: The Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that curtailed judicial review.
Relevance: Asserted that Article 32 protects the basic structure and the power of the judiciary to enforce fundamental rights.
5. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Significance: Expanded the scope of Article 21 (right to life) and the enforcement power under Article 32.
Details: Migrant pavement dwellers were being evicted without alternative arrangements.
Outcome: The Court held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life and can be enforced via Article 32.
Relevance: It showed the broad interpretation of fundamental rights and the role of Article 32 in protecting socio-economic rights.
Summary:
Article 32 is a fundamental safeguard for individuals whose rights are violated.
The Supreme Court plays a crucial role as a protector of fundamental rights through the power to issue writs.
The case laws illustrate the evolution and expansion of the scope of Article 32, balancing individual freedoms and state powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments