Article 139

Article 139 of the Constitution of India empowers Parliament to confer upon the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain writs for purposes beyond those specified in Article 32(2). This provision reinforces the Supreme Court’s position as the guardian of the Constitution and a vital protector of citizens’ rights, enabling it to exercise wider supervisory and corrective jurisdiction when authorised by law.

Constitutional Text and Purpose

Article 139 states:

“Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court power to issue directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, or any of them, for any purposes other than those mentioned in clause (2) of Article 32.”

This Article serves two primary purposes:

1. It allows Parliament to enlarge the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court through legislative action.
2. It ensures that the Supreme Court can address a wider spectrum of legal and administrative issues, not limited merely to the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32.

Thus, Article 139 enhances the flexibility and responsiveness of the judiciary by authorising Parliament to expand the Court’s powers according to the evolving needs of governance and justice.

Relationship Between Article 32 and Article 139

While Article 32 confers an inherent right upon individuals to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights, Article 139 operates as a supplementary and enabling provision.

• Under Article 32(2), the Supreme Court may issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari solely for the protection of fundamental rights.
• Article 139, however, empowers Parliament to authorise the Court to issue these writs for other legal or constitutional purposes, thus widening its jurisdiction beyond the ambit of fundamental rights.

In this way, Article 139 ensures that the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction is comprehensive and adaptable, capable of addressing not only violations of rights but also broader questions of legality and justice.

Types of Writs under Article 139

The writs that Parliament may empower the Supreme Court to issue under Article 139 include:

• Habeas Corpus: Commands that a person detained or imprisoned be produced before the court to assess the legality of the detention.
• Mandamus: Directs a public authority or official to perform a duty required by law.
• Prohibition: Prevents a lower court or tribunal from proceeding in a matter that exceeds its jurisdiction.
• Certiorari: Enables the Supreme Court to quash decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals made without or in excess of jurisdiction.
• Quo Warranto: Questions the legality of a person’s claim to hold a public office.

Through parliamentary enactments, these writs can be extended to a wider array of legal and administrative matters, thereby reinforcing the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate guardian of legality and justice.

Scope and Legislative Empowerment

Article 139 does not itself grant writ-issuing power to the Supreme Court for non-fundamental right purposes; it merely provides the constitutional foundation for Parliament to do so.
Thus, Parliament holds the authority to:

• Define the extent of such writ jurisdiction;
• Prescribe the conditions and procedures for exercising these powers; and
• Determine the types of cases or matters in which such writs may be issued.

However, such laws must remain consistent with the Constitution, particularly the principles of judicial independence and the basic structure doctrine.

Judicial Interpretation and Evolution

Although Article 139 has not been the direct subject of frequent litigation, the Supreme Court’s broader approach to its writ jurisdiction reflects the spirit and intent of this Article. Through landmark judgments, the Court has interpreted its powers to issue writs liberally, ensuring that justice is not constrained by procedural technicalities.
Some of the important cases related to the spirit of Article 139 include:

• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Court established the basic structure doctrine, affirming that while Parliament can expand the Supreme Court’s powers, it cannot curtail or alter the essential features of the Constitution, including judicial review.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional validity, ensuring that Parliament’s legislative powers under Article 139 do not undermine the Constitution’s supremacy.
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): The Court underscored that judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be diluted, whether under Articles 32, 226, or 139.

Through these rulings, the Supreme Court has reinforced the idea that judicial review and writ jurisdiction are integral to the preservation of constitutional governance and individual liberty.

Legislative and Practical Implementation

While Parliament has not enacted a comprehensive law explicitly expanding the Supreme Court’s writ powers under Article 139, various statutes have indirectly operated within this constitutional framework. For instance, the Supreme Court has been empowered to exercise supervisory and appellate jurisdiction over tribunals and statutory bodies through laws enacted under Articles 138 and 139.
In practice, the Supreme Court often exercises writ-like powers through its special leave jurisdiction under Article 136, and through its inherent powers under Articles 141 and 142, which allow it to do “complete justice.”
Article 139 thus provides constitutional flexibility for the legislature to confer new forms of writ jurisdiction whenever required by emerging administrative complexities or new rights and obligations in Indian law.

Significance of Article 139

Article 139 is of enduring constitutional significance because it:

• Strengthens Judicial Oversight: It ensures that the Supreme Court can be empowered to oversee not only constitutional but also statutory and administrative actions.
• Protects Citizens’ Rights: By enabling Parliament to expand writ jurisdiction, it reinforces the judiciary’s role in upholding rule of law and public accountability.
• Facilitates Legal Evolution: Provides a constitutional basis for the judiciary to evolve with changing social, economic, and technological developments.
• Promotes Democratic Governance: Ensures that no organ of the state is beyond judicial scrutiny, maintaining a healthy system of checks and balances.

Limitations of Article 139

While Article 139 allows the expansion of the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction, certain constitutional safeguards apply:

• The powers conferred by Parliament must not infringe upon the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 cannot be curtailed or substituted by laws made under Article 139.
• The Supreme Court cannot assume jurisdiction unless explicitly authorised by Parliament.

These limitations preserve the federal balance and prevent any encroachment upon the autonomy of the Supreme Court or the High Courts.

Related Constitutional Articles

• Article 32: Guarantees the right to constitutional remedies and grants writ powers to the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Article 226: Confers similar powers upon High Courts to issue writs not only for fundamental rights but also for other legal purposes.
• Article 136: Grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal.
• Article 142: Empowers the Court to pass orders necessary to do complete justice in any matter before it.

Together, these Articles define the multi-tiered system of judicial remedies in India, with Article 139 serving as a constitutional bridge for potential expansion of the Supreme Court’s writ authority.

Constitutional and Federal Significance

Article 139 reflects the adaptive and forward-looking character of the Indian Constitution. It reinforces the Supreme Court’s central role in ensuring constitutional supremacy and citizen protection, while maintaining a clear line of legislative control through Parliament.