Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution establishes a robust system of judicial review, empowering both the Supreme Court and High Courts to safeguard fundamental rights and ensure the rule of law. Article 226 of the Constitution grants extraordinary original writ jurisdiction to High Courts, while Article 32 vests similar power in the Supreme Court. While both articles serve a similar purpose – upholding constitutionalism – their scope, procedures, and limitations differ significantly. Recent developments, such as the Supreme Court's expansion of public interest litigation (PIL) and the High Courts' increasing involvement in environmental matters, have further highlighted these distinctions and raised questions about the balance of judicial power. This answer will examine the nature of these powers and delineate the differences between them.
Nature of Powers under Article 226
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto, to enforce fundamental rights and for any other purpose. This jurisdiction is considered extraordinary, meaning it is to be exercised sparingly and only when other remedies are unavailable.
Scope and Limitations of Article 226
- Territorial Jurisdiction: Generally, a High Court's writ jurisdiction is limited to its territorial jurisdiction.
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Initially, Article 226 was interpreted as being limited to enforcing fundamental rights. However, the 1995 Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act removed this restriction, allowing High Courts to issue writs for the redressal of any legal wrong.
- Maintainability: Petitions under Article 226 must satisfy the criteria for maintainability, including absence of an alternative remedy. However, this requirement has been relaxed in certain circumstances, particularly in cases involving public interest.
- Power to Entertain PILs: High Courts have actively entertained Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions under Article 226, significantly expanding access to justice.
Nature of Powers under Article 32
Article 32 grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs, similar to Article 226, to enforce fundamental rights. It is often referred to as the "custodian of fundamental rights."
Scope and Limitations of Article 32
- Scope: Initially, Article 32 was restricted to the enforcement of fundamental rights. However, the Supreme Court has broadened its interpretation to include situations where fundamental rights are indirectly violated.
- Exclusivity: While Article 226 provides a more accessible avenue for redressal, Article 32’s power is considered more potent, particularly in cases involving matters of national importance or constitutional significance.
- Jurisdictional Preamble: Unlike Article 226, Article 32 requires a jurisdictional preamble – a statement that a fundamental right has been violated.
- PIL Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has been instrumental in developing and expanding the scope of PIL under Article 32.
Distinguishing Powers: Article 226 vs. Article 32
The following table summarizes the key distinctions between the powers under Article 226 and Article 32:
| Feature | Article 226 (High Court) | Article 32 (Supreme Court) |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdictional Preamble | Not required | Required - Violation of Fundamental Rights |
| Territorial Limitation | Yes - Limited to territorial jurisdiction | No - All-India jurisdiction |
| Subject Matter | Any legal wrong, not just fundamental rights (post-1995) | Primarily enforcement of Fundamental Rights, broadened interpretation |
| Accessibility | More accessible - wider reach | Less accessible – considered more powerful |
| Hierarchy | Subordinate to Supreme Court | Apex Court |
| Review of HC Orders | Can review its own orders | Can review orders of High Courts |
Evolution and Recent Developments
The scope of both Article 226 and Article 32 has evolved significantly over time through judicial pronouncements. The 1995 Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act broadened the scope of Article 226. Landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the interpretation of fundamental rights, impacting both Articles. The increasing use of PILs under both articles has also been a significant development.
Case Study: The Bhopal Gas Tragedy Litigation
Case Study Title: The Bhopal Gas Tragedy Litigation
Description: The Bhopal Gas Tragedy, a catastrophic industrial disaster in 1984, led to numerous PILs filed under both Article 226 (in the Madhya Pradesh High Court) and Article 32 (in the Supreme Court). The High Court initially dealt with the immediate relief and compensation aspects. However, the Supreme Court’s intervention was crucial in determining the long-term liability of Union Carbide and addressing issues of environmental remediation and social justice.
Outcome: The Supreme Court’s involvement led to a revised compensation scheme and ongoing efforts to address the environmental contamination, highlighting the importance of Article 32 in matters of national importance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both Article 226 and Article 32 empower the judiciary to enforce fundamental rights and uphold constitutionalism, they operate within distinct frameworks. Article 226 provides a readily accessible avenue for redressal within territorial jurisdictions, while Article 32 serves as a powerful instrument for the Supreme Court to address matters of national importance and safeguard fundamental rights on an all-India basis. The evolving jurisprudence surrounding these articles underscores the judiciary's dynamic role in protecting constitutional values and ensuring justice for all citizens.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.