Judicial review under Article 32 (Supreme Court)
⚖️ Judicial Review Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution
🔹 What is Article 32?
Article 32 guarantees the Right to Constitutional Remedies, enabling individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly if their Fundamental Rights are violated.
It is considered the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
It empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto) for enforcement of fundamental rights.
It establishes judicial review as a constitutional safeguard, ensuring that legislative and executive actions remain within constitutional limits.
🔹 Scope and Nature of Judicial Review Under Article 32
Judicial Review means the power of the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.
Article 32 is a direct remedy for violation of Fundamental Rights but does not cover violations of other legal rights.
The Supreme Court can:
Strike down unconstitutional laws
Set aside ultra vires administrative actions
Ensure compliance with the Constitution
Article 32 is a Fundamental Right itself — it cannot be suspended even during Emergency (unlike Article 226, which can be suspended).
🔹 Important Features
Enforcement of Fundamental Rights only.
Supreme Court can issue writs, orders, or directions.
It is a constitutional remedy, independent of statutory laws.
Non-exercise of Article 32 remedies must be justified.
It strengthens constitutional supremacy.
🏛️ Key Case Laws on Judicial Review under Article 32
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts: Challenge to constitutional amendments that allegedly violated Fundamental Rights.
Held: Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
Significance: Judicial Review under Article 32 protects the basic structure doctrine.
Key Takeaway: Article 32 empowers the Court to invalidate constitutional amendments violating fundamental constitutional principles.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Passport was impounded without a fair hearing.
Held: Judicial review must ensure due process and reasonableness under Article 21.
Significance: Expanded scope of Fundamental Rights and reinforced the role of Article 32 to protect procedural fairness.
Key Takeaway: Judicial review ensures executive actions comply with constitutional fairness.
3. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) – The Habeas Corpus Case
Facts: During Emergency, petitioners sought relief under Article 32 for illegal detention.
Held: Majority ruled Article 32 could be suspended during Emergency; Habeas Corpus remedy denied.
Overruled: Later by Minerva Mills (1980) and K.S. Puttaswamy (2017).
Significance: Showed limits and misuse; later reinforced that Article 32 is inviolable even during Emergency.
Key Takeaway: Article 32 is a safeguard that cannot be suspended.
4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Facts: Constitution Amendment 42 sought to curtail judicial review.
Held: Supreme Court struck down the amendment for violating the basic structure.
Significance: Judicial review under Article 32 is part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away.
Key Takeaway: Article 32 is essential for constitutional supremacy.
5. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Facts: Challenge to laws placed under Ninth Schedule to protect them from judicial review.
Held: Laws violating basic structure or Fundamental Rights are subject to judicial review under Article 32.
Significance: Article 32’s power to review laws in Ninth Schedule is reaffirmed.
Key Takeaway: Judicial review under Article 32 protects rights against all laws, even those shielded by Ninth Schedule.
6. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts: Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and arbitrary.
Held: Section 66A struck down for violating freedom of speech (Article 19).
Significance: Demonstrates active use of Article 32 to review executive and legislative excess.
Key Takeaway: Judicial review protects fundamental rights against vague and arbitrary laws.
7. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Facts: Challenge to constitutional validity of tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction.
Held: Supreme Court held judicial review under Article 32 is basic structure and cannot be ousted.
Significance: Reinforces the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32.
Key Takeaway: Judicial review is essential to prevent abuse of administrative authority.
🔹 Writs Under Article 32
| Writ Type | Purpose | Usage Example |
|---|---|---|
| Habeas Corpus | To release a person unlawfully detained | Illegal detention cases |
| Mandamus | To command a public authority to perform duty | Compel govt. to deliver services |
| Prohibition | Prevent lower courts or authorities from exceeding jurisdiction | Stop unauthorized trial |
| Certiorari | Quash orders from lower courts or authorities | Nullify illegal orders |
| Quo Warranto | Question authority of a person holding public office | Challenge unlawful appointment |
🔹 Distinction Between Article 32 and Article 226
| Feature | Article 32 | Article 226 |
|---|---|---|
| Who can issue writs? | Supreme Court only | High Courts |
| Rights enforced | Fundamental Rights only | Fundamental + other legal rights |
| Scope | Wider jurisdiction over constitutional matters | Limited to state |
| Suspension during Emergency | Cannot be suspended | Can be suspended |
🔹 Summary
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Protect Fundamental Rights by judicially reviewing laws and administrative acts |
| Scope | Enforcement of Fundamental Rights, review of constitutional amendments |
| Power | Issue writs, quash unconstitutional acts, enforce fundamental rights |
| Limitations | Only Fundamental Rights, but very broad in interpretation |
| Significance | Ensures supremacy of Constitution, checks arbitrary power, and protects civil liberties |
🔹 Conclusion
Article 32 serves as the guardian of fundamental rights, empowering the Supreme Court to act as the ultimate protector against arbitrary executive and legislative action. Through a robust system of judicial review, it upholds the constitutional rule of law, ensuring that democracy remains vibrant and the rights of citizens safeguarded.
RELATED Blog
0 comments