Analyse the significance of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

The Core of Article 32: Scope and Provisions

Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Article 32(2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders, or such writs as may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights. These writs include Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto. Article 32(3) empowers Parliament to make laws to regulate the exercise of the right conferred by Article 32, but it cannot take away the core right itself. Article 32(4) allows the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights within their respective jurisdictions.

Significance of Article 32

• Guardian of Fundamental Rights: Article 32 acts as a bulwark against arbitrary state action, ensuring that the government remains within the bounds of the Constitution.
• Accessibility to Justice: It provides a direct and accessible avenue for citizens to seek redressal for violations of their fundamental rights, without having to navigate complex bureaucratic procedures.
• Judicial Review: It strengthens the power of judicial review, allowing the courts to scrutinize legislative and executive actions for their constitutionality.
• Enforcement of Part III: Without Article 32, the Fundamental Rights in Part III would be rendered largely ineffective.

Evolution through Landmark Judgements

The interpretation of Article 32 has evolved significantly through various landmark judgments:

• ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976): During the Emergency, the Supreme Court held that the right to habeas corpus could be suspended under Article 32, leading to widespread criticism. This judgment was later overruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which reaffirmed the inviolability of fundamental rights even during an Emergency.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This case established the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including Article 32, in a way that alters its fundamental features.
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): The Supreme Court recognized the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, demonstrating the expansive interpretation of fundamental rights through Article 32.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): This landmark judgment declared the right to privacy a fundamental right, further expanding the scope of Article 32.

Limitations and Debates

Despite its significance, Article 32 is not without limitations:

• Suspension during Emergency: Although the 44th Amendment Act (1978) restored the right to move the Supreme Court even during an Emergency, the debate surrounding the suspension of fundamental rights during times of crisis continues.
• Locus Standi: Traditionally, only the person whose fundamental right is violated could approach the court. However, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has relaxed this rule, allowing others to file petitions on behalf of those unable to do so themselves.
• Remedial Focus: Article 32 primarily focuses on providing remedies for violations of fundamental rights and does not create new rights.

Contemporary Relevance

In the contemporary context, Article 32 remains crucial for protecting citizens’ rights in the face of increasing state power and complex socio-political challenges. It plays a vital role in safeguarding freedom of speech, personal liberty, and equality before the law. The rise of digital technologies and concerns about data privacy have further underscored the importance of Article 32 in protecting fundamental rights in the digital realm.