RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES :- ARTICAL 32

INTRODUCTION  

The Constitution of India is the supreme legal document of India. The document lays  down the framework that demarcates fundamental political code, structure,  procedures, powers, and duties of government institutions and sets out  fundamental rights, directive principles, and the duties of citizens. It is the longest  written national constitution in the world. The Indian Constitution comprises 448  articles organized into 25 parts and 12 schedules, originally enacted with 395  articles. These articles outline the framework of governance, fundamental rights,  duties, and directive principles for the country. Key articles include Article 1 (name  and territory of the Union), Article 14 (right to equality), and Article 19 (freedom of  speech) among others145. The Constitution serves as the supreme legal document,  ensuring a democratic framework for India’s diverse society. 

Article:-32 effective machinery for the enforces no at alt watery which makes the  right real. If there is no remedy, there is no right at all. It was, therefore which  makes the rightings that our Constitution-makers having hereted a long in the  fitnental rights have also provided for an effective remedy for the enforcement of  these rights under Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 is itself a fundamental  right thrticle 226 also empowers all the High Courts to issue the writs for the  enforcement of fundamental rights. 

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.-(1) The right to move  the supreme court by appropriate proceedings for enforcement of the rights  conferred by this Part is guaranteed. 

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,  including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo  warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any  of the rights conferred by this Part.  

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1)  and (2). Parliament may by law empower any other Court to exercise within the  local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme  Court under clause (2). 

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise  provided for by this Constitution. 

CASES ON ARTICLE 32:- 

1. The case Pratibha Ramesh Patel vs. Union of India was adjudicated by the  Supreme Court of India on March 9, 2016. 

Facts: Pratibha Ramesh Patel filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the  Constitution of India before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional  validity of certain provisions of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery  of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012. Prior to this, she had filed a similar writ  petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court, which was admitted, and  an interim order was granted. However, instead of pursuing the pending case in the  High Court, she approached the Supreme Court with an identical petition. 

Issues: 

1. Whether the petitioner could file a writ petition under Article 32 before the  Supreme Court when an identical petition was already pending before the High  Court under Article 226. 
2. Whether such an action constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. Laws Used: 

Article 32 of the Constitution of India: Provides the right to individuals to move the  Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. 

Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Empowers High Courts to issue certain writs  for enforcement of rights. 

Arguments: 

Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner sought to challenge the constitutional validity  of specific provisions of the Amendment Act, asserting that they were beyond the  legislative competence of Parliament. 

Respondent’s Argument: The respondents contended that the petitioner had already  invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, and filing an identical  petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court amounted to an abuse of the  judicial process. 

Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that filing a  petition under Article 32, when an identical petition was already pending before the  High Court under Article 226, constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The  Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the  Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. 

2. The case Lourembam Deben Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. was  adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on November 12, 2018. 

Facts: A group of police personnel from the Manipur Police filed writ petitions under  Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking to quash certain oral observations made by  the Supreme Court in the ongoing case of Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families  Association v. Union of India. They contended that these observations infringed upon  their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, they filed interlocutory  applications requesting the recusal of the judges from hearing their petitions. 

Issues: 

1. Whether the oral observations made by the Supreme Court violated the  petitioners’ rights under Article 21. 
2. Whether the judges should recuse themselves from hearing the writ petitions due  to alleged bias. 

Laws Used: 

Article 32 of the Constitution of India: Provides the right to individuals to move the  Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. 

Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the protection of life and personal  liberty. 

Arguments: 

Petitioners’ Argument: The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court’s oral  observations during the proceedings of the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families  Association case prejudiced their rights and reputation, thereby violating Article 21.  They also contended that the judges’ prior involvement in related matters could lead  to bias, warranting recusal. 

Respondents’ Argument: The respondents maintained that the oral observations did  not constitute a violation of fundamental rights and that the judges had conducted  the proceedings impartially, making recusal unnecessary. 

Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the interlocutory applications for recusal,  finding no merit in the claims of bias. The Court emphasized the importance of  uncovering the truth regarding allegations of fake encounters and extra-judicial  executions in Manipur, as highlighted in the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim  Families Association case. The petitions were dismissed, allowing the ongoing  investigations and proceedings to continue without interference. 

3. The case Bimal Gurung vs. Union of India & Ors. was adjudicated by the Supreme  Court of India on March 16, 2018. 

Facts: Bimal Gurung, President of the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM), was  implicated in numerous criminal cases during the Gorkhaland agitation. He alleged  that the West Bengal Police had registered approximately 300 FIRs against GJM  members and supporters, with 31 directly naming him. Gurung contended that these  FIRs were politically motivated, aiming to suppress the legitimate political  movement for a separate Gorkhaland state. He highlighted instances where police  actions led to the deaths of GJM supporters and claimed that the investigations  were biased and prejudiced against him and his party members. 

Issues: 

1. Whether the investigations conducted by the West Bengal Police against Bimal  Gurung and GJM members were biased and politically motivated. 
2. Whether the investigations should be transferred to an independent agency to  ensure fairness and impartiality. 

Laws Used: 

Article 32 of the Constitution of India: Provides the right to individuals to move the  Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. 

Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the protection of life and personal  liberty. 

Arguments: 

Petitioner’s Argument: Gurung argued that the multitude of FIRs and the manner of  police actions indicated a deliberate attempt to target him and GJM members due to  their political activities. He asserted that the state machinery was misused to stifle  the democratic agitation for Gorkhaland, violating their fundamental rights under  Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution. He sought the transfer of all investigations to  an independent agency, expressing a lack of faith in the impartiality of the West  Bengal Police. 

Respondents’ Argument: The State of West Bengal refuted the allegations, stating  that the FIRs were registered based on genuine complaints of unlawful activities,  including serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities  (Prevention) Act. They emphasized that the investigations were conducted following  due process and that there was no substantiated evidence of bias or political  motivation. The state also highlighted that Gurung had not cooperated with the  investigations and had been evading arrest. 

Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Bimal Gurung,  declining to transfer the investigations to an independent agency. The Court held  that mere allegations of political motivation were insufficient to warrant such a  transfer. It emphasized that there must be substantial evidence to prove bias or  abuse of power by the investigating agency. The Court noted that the offenses  alleged were serious, including charges under Sections 121 (waging war against the  Government of India), 121A (conspiracy to commit offenses punishable by Section  121), and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal  

Code, as well as offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The  Court also observed that Gurung’s non-cooperation with the investigation  undermined his claims. Consequently, the Court found no compelling reason to  transfer the investigations and dismissed the petition. 

Personal Review on Article 32: The Heart and Soul of the Indian Constitution 

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is often regarded as the “heart and soul” of the  Constitution, a description famously given by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. It embodies the  essence of constitutionalism by granting individuals the right to approach the  Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. This article  not only empowers citizens but also acts as a robust mechanism to ensure that the  State does not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the  Constitution. 

Significance of Article 32 

Article 32 is unique because it transforms fundamental rights from mere  declarations into enforceable guarantees. It reflects the proactive approach of the  framers of the Constitution, ensuring that no individual is left without a remedy in  case of rights infringement. The availability of writs like habeas corpus, mandamus,  prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari under this Article demonstrates the depth  of legal protection it offers. 

The Supreme Court, under Article 32, has played a pivotal role in safeguarding  democratic principles. Landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and  Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala highlight its importance in expanding the  scope of fundamental rights and ensuring their dynamic interpretation in changing  socio-political contexts. 

Challenges and Criticisms 

While Article 32 is undoubtedly a cornerstone of constitutional governance, it is not  without challenges. Over the years, concerns have been raised about its misuse.  Frivolous petitions often clog the judicial system, diluting the focus on genuine  cases. The overburdened judiciary, struggling with pendency, has sometimes been  unable to provide speedy remedies, defeating the very purpose of Article 32. 

Another issue is the restrictive interpretation of “fundamental rights.” While Article  32 is limited to these rights, the evolving societal demands often necessitate the  recognition of newer rights, such as environmental rights, as fundamental. 

Judicial Innovations and Future Directions 

Indian judiciary’s innovation, particularly the introduction of Public Interest  Litigation (PIL), has revolutionized the scope of Article 32. PILs have allowed  socially and economically disadvantaged groups to seek justice without procedural  hurdles. Cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and MC Mehta v. Union of India  illustrate how Article 32 has been instrumental in addressing broader societal  concerns. 

However, the judiciary must balance PILs with the principle of judicial restraint to  avoid undermining legislative and executive domains. Going forward, technological  advancements could also be leveraged to make Article 32 remedies more  accessible, such as online filing and virtual hearings. 

Conclusion:- Article 32 remains the most powerful tool for protecting individual  rights and maintaining the sanctity of democracy. Its significance cannot be  overstated, as it ensures that the Constitution is a living document capable of  adapting to the needs of its people. While challenges exist, they only underscore the  need for continuous judicial innovation and systemic reforms to uphold its essence.  In a country as diverse and complex as India, Article 32 is not just a legal  provision—it is a beacon of hope for justice, equality, and freedom.