{"id":4566,"date":"2025-02-18T23:44:28","date_gmt":"2025-02-18T18:14:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/?p=4566"},"modified":"2025-02-18T23:48:33","modified_gmt":"2025-02-18T18:18:33","slug":"right-to-constitutional-remedies-artical-32","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/2025\/02\/18\/right-to-constitutional-remedies-artical-32\/","title":{"rendered":"RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES :- ARTICAL 32"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n \t<\/i> Read Time:<\/span>9 Minute, 59 Second <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

\u00a0Author: Ruplal Saw\u00a0, 1st year student of Netaji Subhash University<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

INTRODUCTION\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Constitution of India is the supreme legal document of India. The document lays\u00a0 down the framework that demarcates fundamental political code, structure,\u00a0 procedures, powers, and duties of government institutions and sets out\u00a0 fundamental rights, directive principles, and the duties of citizens. It is the longest\u00a0 written national constitution in the world. The Indian Constitution comprises 448\u00a0 articles organized into 25 parts and 12 schedules, originally enacted with 395\u00a0 articles. These articles outline the framework of governance, fundamental rights,\u00a0 duties, and directive principles for the country. Key articles include Article 1 (name\u00a0 and territory of the Union), Article 14 (right to equality), and Article 19 (freedom of\u00a0 speech) among others145. The Constitution serves as the supreme legal document,\u00a0 ensuring a democratic framework for India’s diverse society.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Article:-32 effective machinery for the enforces no at alt watery which makes the\u00a0 right real. If there is no remedy, there is no right at all. It was, therefore which\u00a0 makes the rightings that our Constitution-makers having hereted a long in the\u00a0 fitnental rights have also provided for an effective remedy for the enforcement of\u00a0 these rights under Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 is itself a fundamental\u00a0 right thrticle 226 also empowers all the High Courts to issue the writs for the\u00a0 enforcement of fundamental rights.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.-(1) The right to move\u00a0 the supreme court by appropriate proceedings for enforcement of the rights\u00a0 conferred by this Part is guaranteed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,\u00a0 including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo\u00a0 warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any\u00a0 of the rights conferred by this Part.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1)\u00a0 and (2). Parliament may by law empower any other Court to exercise within the\u00a0 local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme\u00a0 Court under clause (2).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise\u00a0 provided for by this Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

CASES ON ARTICLE 32:-\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The case Pratibha Ramesh Patel vs. Union of India was adjudicated by the\u00a0 Supreme Court of India on March 9, 2016.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Facts: Pratibha Ramesh Patel filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the\u00a0 Constitution of India before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional\u00a0 validity of certain provisions of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery\u00a0 of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012. Prior to this, she had filed a similar writ\u00a0 petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court, which was admitted, and\u00a0 an interim order was granted. However, instead of pursuing the pending case in the\u00a0 High Court, she approached the Supreme Court with an identical petition.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Issues:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Whether the petitioner could file a writ petition under Article 32 before the\u00a0 Supreme Court when an identical petition was already pending before the High\u00a0 Court under Article 226.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Whether such an action constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. Laws Used:\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Article 32 of the Constitution of India: Provides the right to individuals to move the\u00a0 Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Empowers High Courts to issue certain writs\u00a0 for enforcement of rights.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      Arguments:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner sought to challenge the constitutional validity\u00a0 of specific provisions of the Amendment Act, asserting that they were beyond the\u00a0 legislative competence of Parliament.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      Respondent’s Argument: The respondents contended that the petitioner had already\u00a0 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, and filing an identical\u00a0 petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court amounted to an abuse of the\u00a0 judicial process.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that filing a\u00a0 petition under Article 32, when an identical petition was already pending before the\u00a0 High Court under Article 226, constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The\u00a0 Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the\u00a0 Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The case Lourembam Deben Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. was\u00a0 adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on November 12, 2018.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Facts: A group of police personnel from the Manipur Police filed writ petitions under\u00a0 Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking to quash certain oral observations made by\u00a0 the Supreme Court in the ongoing case of Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families\u00a0 Association v. Union of India. They contended that these observations infringed upon\u00a0 their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, they filed interlocutory\u00a0 applications requesting the recusal of the judges from hearing their petitions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

        Issues:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Whether the oral observations made by the Supreme Court violated the\u00a0 petitioners’ rights under Article 21.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
        2. Whether the judges should recuse themselves from hearing the writ petitions due\u00a0 to alleged bias.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Laws Used:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Article 32 of the Constitution of India: Provides the right to individuals to move the\u00a0 Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the protection of life and personal\u00a0 liberty.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Arguments:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Petitioners’ Argument: The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court’s oral\u00a0 observations during the proceedings of the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families\u00a0 Association case prejudiced their rights and reputation, thereby violating Article 21.\u00a0 They also contended that the judges’ prior involvement in related matters could lead\u00a0 to bias, warranting recusal.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Respondents’ Argument: The respondents maintained that the oral observations did\u00a0 not constitute a violation of fundamental rights and that the judges had conducted\u00a0 the proceedings impartially, making recusal unnecessary.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the interlocutory applications for recusal,\u00a0 finding no merit in the claims of bias. The Court emphasized the importance of\u00a0 uncovering the truth regarding allegations of fake encounters and extra-judicial\u00a0 executions in Manipur, as highlighted in the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim\u00a0 Families Association case. The petitions were dismissed, allowing the ongoing\u00a0 investigations and proceedings to continue without interference.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. The case Bimal Gurung vs. Union of India & Ors. was adjudicated by the Supreme\u00a0 Court of India on March 16, 2018.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Facts: Bimal Gurung, President of the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM), was\u00a0 implicated in numerous criminal cases during the Gorkhaland agitation. He alleged\u00a0 that the West Bengal Police had registered approximately 300 FIRs against GJM\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>members and supporters, with 31 directly naming him. Gurung contended that these\u00a0 FIRs were politically motivated, aiming to suppress the legitimate political\u00a0 movement for a separate Gorkhaland state. He highlighted instances where police\u00a0 actions led to the deaths of GJM supporters and claimed that the investigations\u00a0 were biased and prejudiced against him and his party members.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

            Issues:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Whether the investigations conducted by the West Bengal Police against Bimal\u00a0 Gurung and GJM members were biased and politically motivated.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
            2. Whether the investigations should be transferred to an independent agency to\u00a0 ensure fairness and impartiality.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Laws Used:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

              Article 32 of the Constitution of India: Provides the right to individuals to move the\u00a0 Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the protection of life and personal\u00a0 liberty.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Arguments:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

              Petitioner’s Argument: Gurung argued that the multitude of FIRs and the manner of\u00a0 police actions indicated a deliberate attempt to target him and GJM members due to\u00a0 their political activities. He asserted that the state machinery was misused to stifle\u00a0 the democratic agitation for Gorkhaland, violating their fundamental rights under\u00a0 Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution. He sought the transfer of all investigations to\u00a0 an independent agency, expressing a lack of faith in the impartiality of the West\u00a0 Bengal Police.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Respondents’ Argument: The State of West Bengal refuted the allegations, stating\u00a0 that the FIRs were registered based on genuine complaints of unlawful activities,\u00a0 including serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities\u00a0 (Prevention) Act. They emphasized that the investigations were conducted following\u00a0 due process and that there was no substantiated evidence of bias or political\u00a0 motivation. The state also highlighted that Gurung had not cooperated with the\u00a0 investigations and had been evading arrest.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Bimal Gurung,\u00a0 declining to transfer the investigations to an independent agency. The Court held\u00a0 that mere allegations of political motivation were insufficient to warrant such a\u00a0 transfer. It emphasized that there must be substantial evidence to prove bias or\u00a0 abuse of power by the investigating agency. The Court noted that the offenses\u00a0 alleged were serious, including charges under Sections 121 (waging war against the\u00a0 Government of India), 121A (conspiracy to commit offenses punishable by Section\u00a0 121), and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Code, as well as offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The\u00a0 Court also observed that Gurung’s non-cooperation with the investigation\u00a0 undermined his claims. Consequently, the Court found no compelling reason to\u00a0 transfer the investigations and dismissed the petition.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Personal Review on Article 32: The Heart and Soul of the Indian Constitution\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is often regarded as the “heart and soul” of the\u00a0 Constitution, a description famously given by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. It embodies the\u00a0 essence of constitutionalism by granting individuals the right to approach the\u00a0 Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. This article\u00a0 not only empowers citizens but also acts as a robust mechanism to ensure that the\u00a0 State does not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the\u00a0 Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Significance of Article 32\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

              Article 32 is unique because it transforms fundamental rights from mere\u00a0 declarations into enforceable guarantees. It reflects the proactive approach of the\u00a0 framers of the Constitution, ensuring that no individual is left without a remedy in\u00a0 case of rights infringement. The availability of writs like habeas corpus, mandamus,\u00a0 prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari under this Article demonstrates the depth\u00a0 of legal protection it offers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              The Supreme Court, under Article 32, has played a pivotal role in safeguarding\u00a0 democratic principles. Landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and\u00a0 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala highlight its importance in expanding the\u00a0 scope of fundamental rights and ensuring their dynamic interpretation in changing\u00a0 socio-political contexts.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Challenges and Criticisms\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

              While Article 32 is undoubtedly a cornerstone of constitutional governance, it is not\u00a0 without challenges. Over the years, concerns have been raised about its misuse.\u00a0 Frivolous petitions often clog the judicial system, diluting the focus on genuine\u00a0 cases. The overburdened judiciary, struggling with pendency, has sometimes been\u00a0 unable to provide speedy remedies, defeating the very purpose of Article 32.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Another issue is the restrictive interpretation of “fundamental rights.” While Article\u00a0 32 is limited to these rights, the evolving societal demands often necessitate the\u00a0 recognition of newer rights, such as environmental rights, as fundamental.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Judicial Innovations and Future Directions\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

              Indian judiciary\u2019s innovation, particularly the introduction of Public Interest\u00a0 Litigation (PIL), has revolutionized the scope of Article 32. PILs have allowed\u00a0 socially and economically disadvantaged groups to seek justice without procedural\u00a0 hurdles. Cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and MC Mehta v. Union of India\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>illustrate how Article 32 has been instrumental in addressing broader societal\u00a0 concerns.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              However, the judiciary must balance PILs with the principle of judicial restraint to\u00a0 avoid undermining legislative and executive domains. Going forward, technological\u00a0 advancements could also be leveraged to make Article 32 remedies more\u00a0 accessible, such as online filing and virtual hearings.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

              Conclusion:-<\/strong> Article 32 remains the most powerful tool for protecting individual\u00a0 rights and maintaining the sanctity of democracy. Its significance cannot be\u00a0 overstated, as it ensures that the Constitution is a living document capable of\u00a0 adapting to the needs of its people. While challenges exist, they only underscore the\u00a0 need for continuous judicial innovation and systemic reforms to uphold its essence.\u00a0 In a country as diverse and complex as India, Article 32 is not just a legal\u00a0 provision\u2014it is a beacon of hope for justice, equality, and freedom.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

              \n
              \n \n
              \n \n \"Happy\"\n <\/a>\n
              \n Happy <\/div>\n
              \n 0<\/span>\n \n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
              \n \n \"Sad\"\n <\/a>\n
              \n Sad <\/div>\n
              \n 0<\/span>\n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
              \n \n \"Excited\"\n <\/a>\n
              \n Excited <\/div>\n
              \n 2<\/span>\n 100<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
              \n \n \"Sleepy\"\n <\/a>\n
              \n Sleepy <\/div>\n
              \n 0<\/span>\n \n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
              \n \n \"Angry\"\n <\/a>\n
              Angry<\/div>\n
              \n 0<\/span>\n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
              \n \n \"Surprise\"\n <\/a>\n
              Surprise<\/div>\n
              \n 0<\/span>\n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              \u00a0Author: Ruplal Saw\u00a0, 1st year student of Netaji Subhash University INTRODUCTION\u00a0\u00a0 The Constitution of India is the supreme legal document of India. The document lays\u00a0 down the framework that demarcates fundamental political code, structure,\u00a0 procedures, powers, and duties of government institutions and sets out\u00a0 fundamental rights, directive principles, and the duties of citizens. It is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4374,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[85],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4566"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4566"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4566\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4570,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4566\/revisions\/4570"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4374"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}