Dalvoy Logo
Dalvoy
UPSC MainsGeneral Studies Paper IConstitutionPractice question

Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts vs Supreme Court

The writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 is wider than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32. Discuss.

Discuss~250 words3 min readmedium
Attempt it first, timed · optional

Write the answer on paper, as in the exam. Start the timer, keep to the word target.

00:00/ 11 min · 250 words

Done writing? Photograph the sheet and see how it scores against this model answer, with feedback on what to fix.

Upload your answer sheet

How to approach

Introduce the constitutional provisions governing writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226. Compare the substantive scope, nature of remedies, and territorial jurisdiction of both courts, highlighting why the High Court's remit is broader. Conclude by emphasizing both jurisdictions as part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Model answer

411 words

Introduction

Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to issue prerogative writs—Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto. While both serve as bulwarks of constitutional remedies, the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts is substantively wider in scope than that of the apex court.

Substantive Scope: Purpose of Writs

The primary reason the High Court's writ jurisdiction is considered wider lies in the subject matter it covers:

  • Article 32 (Supreme Court): Restricted strictly to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. An individual cannot invoke Article 32 for the violation of an ordinary legal or statutory right.
  • Article 226 (High Court): Available for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as "for any other purpose". This phrase enables High Courts to grant relief against the violation of common law rights, statutory rights, or administrative excesses.

Nature of Remedy: Guaranteed vs. Discretionary

The nature of the remedy under each constitutional provision differs significantly:

  • Supreme Court: The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right. As held in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court cannot refuse to entertain a petition where a Fundamental Right has been infringed, acting as its protector and guarantor.
  • High Courts: Relief under Article 226 is discretionary. A High Court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction if an adequate alternative legal remedy exists, unless there is a grave violation of natural justice or fundamental rights.

Territorial Extent and Cause of Action

While the Supreme Court's territorial writ jurisdiction extends across the entire territory of India, the High Courts originally faced strict geographic limitations:

  • Territorial Reach: The Supreme Court issues writs to any authority throughout India, whereas a High Court primarily exercises jurisdiction within its state territory.
  • Cause of Action under Article 226(2): The 15th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963 inserted Clause (2) to Article 226, permitting a High Court to issue writs to any government or authority located outside its territory, provided the cause of action wholly or in part arises within its territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Despite differences in breadth and discretion, the writ powers of both the Supreme Court and High Courts constitute an essential feature of judicial review. As affirmed in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the powers under Articles 32 and 226 are part of the unamendable Basic Structure of the Constitution, ensuring constitutionalism and the rule of law.

Key facts to remember

case study
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)

The Supreme Court established that Article 32 is itself a guaranteed fundamental right, making the apex court the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights with no power to refuse an eligible petition.

case study
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

A seven-judge Constitution Bench held that the power of judicial review vested in High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 forms part of the unamendable Basic Structure of the Constitution.

definition
For Any Other Purpose (Article 226)

A constitutional phrase that allows High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of non-fundamental legal and statutory rights, extending jurisdiction beyond constitutional violations.

scheme
15th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963

Introduced Article 226(2), enabling High Courts to issue directions or writs to entities outside their territorial boundaries if the cause of action arises within their territory.

Frequently asked questions

Can the High Court refuse to hear an Article 226 petition?

Yes. Unlike Article 32, which is itself a fundamental right, remedy under Article 226 is discretionary, and a High Court may decline relief if an efficacious alternative remedy is available.

← All questions on this topic (39)