Fundamental Rights- The Golden Treasure of Indian Constitution (Part 6)

Right to Constitutional Remedies (Articles 32 & 226)

“We are under a constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our property and our liberty and our property under the Constitution.” – Charles Evans Hughes

Article 32 – Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is viewed as one of the main articles regarding the implementation of the rights of a person. It gives a person liberty to look for Justice in a court when they feel their rights have been infringed or ‘unduly denied.’ The High Court can execute the rights that have been offered to a person by the Constitution. Under Article 32, Parliament can likewise endow the authority of the Supreme Court to some other council, given that it is inside its jurisdiction. What’s more, until there is an established alteration, it is beyond the realm of possibilities to expect to suspend the protection got by this article. Accordingly, from this article, we might presume that a guaranteed right is certified to people for the assurance of critical rights, as a rule, allows a person the option to quickly arrive at the Supreme Court without seeking after a more extended methodology by going to the lower courts first as the fundamental object of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 is to implement significant liberties.

The article contains other protected rights in Part III of the Constitution, including a vote-based system, liberty of speech and expression, life and personal liberty, and the freedom of religion. Provided that any of these fundamental rights are violated, a person can, under Article 32, approach the Supreme Court.


  • The primary goal of Article 32 is to give a certified, successful, and practical solution for the security of fundamental rights.
  • The Supreme Court has unique yet not select jurisdiction over the performance of Fundamental Rights. It runs simultaneously with the High Court’s Article 226 authority. It vests extraordinary power in the High Court to give directions, orders, and writs of numerous sorts for the authorization of the Fundamental Rights.
  • Article 32 builds up the Supreme Court as the defender and guarantor of fundamental liberties. Moreover, the Apex Court has special jurisdiction over giving writs. This implies that a person can contact S.C. for a remedy rather than engaging.

Article 226 – Authority of High Courts to issue certain writs

An incredibly massive part of the Indian Constitution is the Jurisdiction it presents on the High Court to give writs. The Writs have been among the extraordinary protections provided by the British Judicial System for maintaining the rights and liberties of personals. This authority can be utilized by the High Court for implementation of top rights as well as lie for authorization of Judicial Rights. Article 226 authorizes the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the public administration (in fitting cases), directions, orders or writs, remembering writs for the idea of habeas corpus, mandamus, restriction, quo warranto, certiorari, or any of them.

Scope of Article 226

In the case of Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) Thr. Los. and Ors. V/s District Chittoor Dist. and Ors. (Common Appeal No.7461 of 2009), it was seen by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “Administrative decisions are dependent upon judicial survey under Article 226 of the Constitution, just on the grounds of patent illegality, the need of the ability to make a choice and procedural anomaly. Besides on these grounds, regulatory decisions are not slowed down, in the exercise of the additional common authority of judicial review”. It was additionally explained that:

“A choice may some of the time be saved and subdued under Article 226 on the ground of illicitness. This is when there is a clear mistake of law on the essence of the choice, which goes to the base of the choice or potentially all in all an obvious error, yet for which the choice would have been in any case. Judicial review under Article 226 is coordinated, not against the choice, but rather the dynamic interaction. Patent illegality and mistake evident on the essence of the choice, which goes to the base of the choice, may vitiate the dynamic interaction. For this situation, there is no such patent illicitness of obvious error. In exercise of authority under Article 226, the Court doesn’t sit in advance over the choice reproved, nor does it arbitrate fervently questioned inquiries of truth.”

In the case of Common Cause VS. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005], it was seen by the Hon’ble Supreme court that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court had been given the authority and jurisdiction to issue writs like mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto and habeas corpus for the implementation of essential liberties or some other purposes. In this manner, the High Court has jurisdiction not exclusively to help implement fundamental rights yet in addition for “whatever other reason,” which would incorporate the requirement of public obligations by public bodies. So likewise, the Supreme Court under Article 32 has the jurisdiction to give privilege writs for the authorization of critical rights certified to a citizen under the Constitution.”

Concept of Writ

A writ can be characterized as a written order given by a court of more significant position. It is allowed to a lower-level court or a person to break a citizen’s fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of India can give a writ under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. For the most part, a written order is documented in the event of an infringement of the fundamental liberties or foul play served to any personal/distressed. It is fundamentally a restorative measure that the Constitution gives against law and orders managing an expert in the country for the reasons referenced beneath:

  • To assist citizens with ensuring their fundamental rights against court orders.
  • To offer an option in contrast to the victim if there should arise an occurrence of certifying isn’t protested by the orders made to the approved higher experts in the broad set of laws.
  • To certify that Justice is served and not denied.

Kinds of Writs

Habeas Corpus:

The expression “Habeas Corpus” is a Latin expression that signifies ‘to have the body’. Assuming that a person is kept unlawfully, his family members, companions, or any person can move the Court by applying Article 226 in High Court or under Article 32 in Supreme Court for the Writ of Habeas Corpus. On being satisfied with the substance of the application, the Court issues the Writ. This Writ is in the idea of an order calling upon the person who has kept one more to create the last option under the Court, to let the Court know on what ground he has been restricted and to liberate him assuming there is no legitimate legitimization for the control. The Court may likewise grant exemplary costs. In the case of Bhim Singh Vs. the State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR 1986 SC 494), the Hon’ble Apex Court granted the commendable damages of Rs.50,000/ – (around then, this was an incredibly huge sum).

An application for habeas corpus can be made by any person for the benefit of the detainee/detenu, just as the detainee/detenu himself. Indeed, even a letter to the appointed authority referencing lawless acts submitted on detainees in prison can be conceded. In the case of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC 1579), a convict had posted a letter to one of the Judges of the Supreme Court asserting cruel torment to a personal convict. Justice Krishna Iyer treated this letter as a habeas corpus appeal and passed suitable orders. Courts can likewise act suo motu in light of a legitimate concern for Justice on any data got by it from any quarter/source. The general rule is that a person wrongfully kept in restriction without judicial actions is qualified to remedy habeas corpus.

Nonetheless, the Writ of habeas corpus isn’t given in the accompanying cases:

  • Where the person against whom the Writ is given or the person who is confined isn’t inside the jurisdiction of the Court.
  • To remedy the release of a detained person by a Court of law on a criminal accusation.
  • To disrupt a procedure for contempt by a Court of record or Parliament.

Consequently, the Writ of habeas corpus is a defence of personal liberty. The most trademark component of the Writ is its authoritativeness, i.e., a rapid and viable solution for having the legitimateness of detainment of the personal enquired and controlled by the Court.


‘Mandamus’ is a Latin expression that signifies “We Command.” Mandamus is a Judicial order given as an order to any Constitutional, Statutory, or Non-Statutory authority order to complete a public obligation authority by law or cease doing a specific demonstration, which the authority isn’t qualified to do under the law. It is a significant writ to look at mediation of administrative exercise. It is likewise called ‘Writ of Justice.’ Mandamus orders some action concerning the body or personal it tends to. Accordingly, when a body discards to conclude a matter which it will undoubtedly choose, it tends to be instructed to choose something similar. Where the Government denies a jurisdiction which it has under the law or where an authority vested with the authority inappropriately will not practice it, mandamus can be given. In this way, mandamus won’t be given except if the candidate has a legitimate right to present lawful obligation of a public sort. The party against whom the Writ is looked for will undoubtedly play out that obligation.

The standard of Locus Standi is continued while giving the Writ of mandamus. The candidate needs to demonstrate that he has the privilege to authorize public obligation in support of himself. The petitioner can move to jurisdiction the High Court or Supreme Court for giving the Writ of mandamus on the accompanying grounds: –

  • The error of jurisdiction;
  • Infringement of the standards of regular Justice, i.e., means of the rule against inclination and Rule of Audi altered partem;
  • The error of law is apparent in the essence of the record
  • Maltreatment of jurisdiction

It is a discretionary remedy. The High Court might decline to give mandamus where an elective remedy is accessible for the redressal of the injury complained. Regarding the authorization of fundamental rights, in any case, the subject of elective remedy doesn’t weigh such a significant amount with the Court since it is the obligation of the High Court or the Supreme Court to implement the fundamental liberties. In India, mandamus will lie not just against officials who will undoubtedly carry out a public responsibility yet additionally against the actual Government as Article 226 and 361 given that fitting procedures might be brought against the Government concerned. This Writ is additionally accessible against mediocre Courts or other Judicial bodies when they wouldn’t practice their jurisdiction and accordingly play out their obligation. Further, mandamus won’t be conceded against the accompanying people:

  • The President or the Governor of any State, as part of the exercise and performance of the obligations of his office or any demonstration done or indicating to be finished by him in the exercise and performance of those authorities and duties.
  • Mandamus doesn’t lie against a private person or body whether or not fused aside from where the State is in arrangement with such private party, regarding negation of any interpretation of the Constitution or a Statutory instrument.
  • It won’t lie against the State governing body to keep from establishing a law claimed to be violative of protected arrangements.
  • It won’t lie against a sub-par or clerical official who will undoubtedly submit to the sets of his bosses.

Consequently, the Writ of Mandamus is an overall remedy at whatever point Justice has been denied to any person.


In a real sense, the expression ‘ prohibition ‘ signifies ‘to prohibit.’ The Writ of Prohibition is a Judicial order given by the Supreme Court or a High Court to a substandard Court or semi-judicial body precluding the last option to proceed with procedures in an overabundance of its jurisdiction or to usurp a jurisdiction with which it isn’t lawfully vested. Accordingly, the object of the Writ is too mediocre authority courts to keep themselves inside the constraints of their location. Prior, this Writ was utilized to issue just to judicial and semi-judicial bodies. However, such a prerequisite is presently not substantial. With the extending aspects of average Justice and the necessity of decency in regulatory capacities, the unbending nature of restriction has been changed. This Writ would now be able to mislead anyone, regardless of the idea of capacity practised by it, on the off chance that any of the grounds on which the Writ is given is available.

The Writ of disallowance can be given on the accompanying grounds:

  • Absence or Excess of jurisdiction;
  • Infringement of the standards of average Justice;
  • The illegality of a Statute;
  • Infraction of Fundamental Rights

Consequently, the Writ of prohibition is accessible during the pendency of the procedures and before the order is made. The item is to get that the jurisdiction of a second-rate court or council is appropriately practised and that it doesn’t usurp the jurisdiction, which it doesn’t have.


The expression “certiorari” is a Latin word that signifies “to certify.” This Writ gives the Supreme Court and High Courts authority to address illicitness of their decisions. ‘Certiorari’ is a judicial order issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 and additionally by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to a mediocre Court or semi-judicial or any administrative body to communicate to the Court of records of procedures forthcoming in that for scrutiny and determined the legality and validity of the orders passed by them. If the choice is disagreeable in law, it is quashed. The conditions fundamental for the issue of the Writ of certiorari are: –

  • Anyone of people;
  • Having legitimate authority;
  • To decide questions influencing the rights of subjects;
  • Having an obligation to act judicially;
  • Act in overabundance of legitimate authority

The grounds on which the Writ of certiorari might be given are:

  • Mistake of Jurisdiction
  • Absence of jurisdiction
  • Overabundance of jurisdiction
  • Maltreatment of jurisdiction
  • The error of law is apparent in the essence of the record
  • Infringement of standards of regular Justice

The motivation behind the Writ of certiorari isn’t just negative as in it is utilized to subdue an exercise; however, it contains governmental policy regarding minorities in society also. Therefore, it is preventive, just as corrective. The authority of judicial review isn’t confined where glaring unfairness orders governmental policy regarding minorities in society, the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Kripak Vs. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150) gave the Writ of certiorari to suppress the determination rundown of the Indian Forest Service on the ground that one of the chosen applicants was the ex-officio personal from the choice council.

Quo Warranto:

The Writ of ‘Quo Warranto’ questions the title regarding an officeholder. The term ‘Quo Warranto’ signifies ‘what is your authority. ‘It is a judicial order asking a person, who possesses public office, to show by what authority s/he holds the office. Assuming it is observed that the office holder has no legitimate title, then, at that point, this Writ is given to him to remove from the office.

Accordingly, the Writ of Quo Warranto is a method of judicial control as in the procedures review the activities of the authoritative authority which selected the personal. The Writ is given to the personal expelling him from holding a public post to which he has no right. It is utilized to attempt the common due to a public post. As needs are, the utilization of the Writ is made in instances of usurpation of a public office and evacuation of such usurper. Then again, it shields the citizen from being denied public office to which he might have a right. Any person can record an order for the Writ of Quo Warranto; however, he is anything but a wronged person.

The conditions vital for the issue of a writ of Quo Warranto are:

  • First, the office should be public, and it should be made by a resolution or by the actual Constitution.
  • The office should be a meaningful one and not only the capacity or work of a worker at the will and during the joy of another.
  • There has been a repudiation of the ConstitutionConstitution or a rule or judicial instrument in delegating such personal to that office.

The fundamental premise of the procedure of Quo Warranto is that people, in general, have the interest to see that an unlawful inquirer doesn’t usurp a public office. It is, be that as it may, a discretionary remedy which the Court might give or decline as indicated by current realities and conditions of each case. Accordingly, it very well might be rejected when it is vexatious or where it would be vain in its result or where the applicant is at fault for laches or where there is an elective solution for removing the usurper. The Delhi High Court in P.L. Lakhan Pal Vs. A.N. Ray (AIR 1975 Del.66) held that it wouldn’t issue a Writ against Chief Justice of India, Justice Ray, since it would be useless in its result as the three Judges’ higher ranking than he previously surrendered. Justice Ray turns into the senior-most and, as such, can be re-selected even it was expected that the arrangement of Chief Justice of India ought to be based on the status rule.


In this way, enormous authorities are vested with the Judiciary to control an Administrative exercise when it encroaches critical liberties of the citizens or when it goes past the soul of Grundnorm of our nation, i.e., the Constitution of India. It guarantees the Rule of Law and suitable checks and balances between the three organs of our majority rule framework. The way of thinking of writs is very much synchronized in our Constitutional arrangements to guarantee that the rights of citizens are not stifled by a discretionary regulatory or Judicial exercise.