Article 32

Article 32 of the Constitution of India is one of the most vital provisions safeguarding the rights and liberties of individuals. It guarantees the Right to Constitutional Remedies, allowing any person to directly approach the Supreme Court of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution. Often described by Dr B. R. Ambedkar as the “heart and soul of the Constitution,” Article 32 serves as both a Fundamental Right and a procedural safeguard, ensuring that rights are not merely theoretical but practically enforceable.

Constitutional Scope and Objective

Article 32 embodies the principle that where there is a right, there must be a remedy (ubi jus ibi remedium). It ensures judicial protection against any violation of Fundamental Rights by the State or its agencies. The Article empowers the Supreme Court to act as the protector and guarantor of these rights, thus upholding the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution.
This Article ensures that citizens have direct access to the highest court without having to exhaust other remedies. It also reinforces the idea of constitutional supremacy, making the judiciary the ultimate interpreter and enforcer of Fundamental Rights.

Structure and Key Provisions

Article 32 consists of four clauses outlining the right, the powers of the Supreme Court, and the extent of judicial remedies available:

• Clause (1): Guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
• Clause (2): Empowers the Supreme Court to issue appropriate writs, directions, or orders for enforcing these rights.
• Clause (3): Authorises Parliament to confer similar powers on other courts within India, subject to their jurisdiction and territorial limits.
• Clause (4): Restricts the suspension of the right to move the Supreme Court except as provided by the Constitution (for instance, during a national emergency under Article 359).

Together, these clauses create a robust mechanism for constitutional justice and protection against executive or legislative excesses.

Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Under Article 32(2), the Supreme Court is empowered to issue five types of writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. These writs, borrowed from British jurisprudence, are essential instruments for judicial review and constitutional remedies.

1. Habeas Corpus (“to have the body”) – Issued to produce a person who is unlawfully detained before the court and to ensure release if the detention is found illegal. It is a safeguard of personal liberty under Article 21.
2. Mandamus (“we command”) – Issued to compel a public authority to perform a mandatory duty imposed upon it by law.
3. Prohibition – Issued to a lower court or tribunal to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law.
4. Certiorari (“to be certified”) – Issued by a superior court to quash an order passed by a lower court or quasi-judicial body that has acted beyond its jurisdiction or in violation of procedure.
5. Quo Warranto (“by what authority”) – Issued to inquire into the legality of a person holding a public office and to prevent usurpation of such office without legal authority.

These writs are powerful tools in the hands of the judiciary to ensure the protection of individual rights and to keep public authorities within the limits of their legal powers.

Empowerment of Other Courts

Under Article 32(3), Parliament may empower other courts, including High Courts, to exercise similar powers for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights within their jurisdictions. However, in practice, this power is rarely invoked, and High Courts exercise their writ jurisdiction primarily under Article 226, which has a broader scope as it covers both Fundamental Rights and other legal rights.

Non-Suspension of the Right

Article 32(4) clearly provides that the right to move the Supreme Court cannot be suspended except as provided by the Constitution. The only constitutional exception is during a National Emergency, under Article 359, when the enforcement of certain Fundamental Rights may be suspended temporarily. However, even in such cases, the judiciary retains residual powers to prevent arbitrary or mala fide actions by the executive.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Judgments

The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in expanding the scope and effectiveness of Article 32 through landmark judgments.

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression is a Fundamental Right enforceable under Article 32, setting a precedent for direct judicial intervention.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Court declared Article 32 as part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, meaning it cannot be abrogated or amended to take away the right to constitutional remedies.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Court expanded the interpretation of personal liberty under Article 21 and emphasised the importance of judicial review under Article 32 as a cornerstone of the rule of law.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The judgment reinforced the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, reaffirming Article 32’s role as an essential safeguard of constitutional democracy.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Using Article 32, the Court formulated guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces, illustrating the dynamic use of judicial power to fill legislative gaps.
• Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992): The Court recognised the Right to Education as implicit in the right to life under Article 21, making it enforceable through Article 32.

These judgments demonstrate how Article 32 has been instrumental in judicial activism and the progressive interpretation of Fundamental Rights.

Article 32 and Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Article 32 has also been the foundation for the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. Through PILs, individuals or groups can seek remedies for violations of rights affecting large sections of society, especially those unable to approach the court themselves.
This innovation, beginning in the late 1970s and 1980s, transformed the Supreme Court into a “people’s court”, making justice accessible and participatory. Landmark PIL cases, such as those related to environmental protection, bonded labour, and human rights, have all been filed under Article 32.

Comparison with Article 226

While Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court, Article 226 grants similar powers to High Courts. However, there are key distinctions:

• Article 32 applies only to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 226 covers both Fundamental and other legal rights.
• The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, but the right to approach a High Court under Article 226 is a constitutional but not a fundamental right.
• Article 226 has a wider territorial and remedial scope, allowing High Courts to intervene in a broader range of matters, whereas Article 32 ensures direct recourse to the Supreme Court for fundamental rights violations.

Both provisions complement each other, creating a dual mechanism for the protection of rights and the maintenance of constitutional order.

Significance of Article 32

Article 32 serves as the bedrock of judicial review and constitutional enforcement in India. Its significance can be summarised as follows:

• Guarantee of Fundamental Rights: Ensures that rights are enforceable, not merely declaratory.
• Judicial Empowerment: Empowers the Supreme Court as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution.
• Access to Justice: Provides citizens direct access to the apex court, enhancing judicial accountability.
• Foundation for Judicial Activism: Enables the court to address issues of social justice, governance, and human rights.
• Safeguard Against State Arbitrary Action: Acts as a check on executive and legislative powers, upholding the rule of law.

Contemporary Relevance

In modern India, Article 32 continues to play a transformative role. It remains the most potent instrument for protecting civil liberties, ensuring government accountability, and promoting social welfare. The evolving nature of Fundamental Rights—covering issues such as privacy, environment, and digital freedoms—has further enhanced the significance of this provision.

Conclusion

Article 32 stands as the “heart and soul” of the Indian Constitution, representing the living spirit of democracy and justice. By providing a direct remedy for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, it transforms constitutional ideals into enforceable realities. Its presence ensures that no violation of rights goes unaddressed and that the Constitution remains the supreme guardian of liberty, equality, and justice in the Republic of India.