Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies

The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

Why Dr. Ambedkar Called it the "Heart and Soul"

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the "heart and soul of the Constitution" because:

• Without a remedy, fundamental rights would be meaningless
• It makes rights real and enforceable
• Provides direct access to the Supreme Court
• Cannot be suspended except during Emergency

Key Features

1. Direct Access to Supreme Court: Citizens can directly approach the apex court
2. Itself a Fundamental Right: Not just a remedy but a guaranteed right
3. Mandatory Duty: Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise this power
4. Wide Powers: Court can issue any directions or writs

Five Types of Writs

Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue five types of writs:

1. Habeas Corpus (Produce the Body)

• Most important writ for personal liberty
• Issued to produce a person before the court
• Used in cases of illegal detention
• Can be issued against public and private authorities

2. Mandamus (We Command)

• Commands a public authority to perform a public duty
• Cannot be issued against private individuals
• Most commonly used writ
• Examples: Directing government to implement a policy, grant a license, etc.

3. Prohibition

• Issued to inferior courts and tribunals
• Prohibits them from exceeding jurisdiction
• Preventive in nature (issued before decision)
• Cannot be issued against legislative bodies or private individuals

4. Certiorari

• Issued to quash orders of inferior courts/tribunals
• Curative in nature (issued after decision)
• Based on excess of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice
• Can be issued suo moto by the court

5. Quo Warranto (By What Authority)

• Questions the legality of a person holding public office
• Prevents usurpation of public office
• Office must be public, substantive, and created by statute
• Can be issued at the instance of any interested person

Article 32 vs Article 226

Feature	Article 32 (Supreme Court)	Article 226 (High Court)
Nature	Fundamental Right	Constitutional Power
Scope	Only for fundamental rights	For fundamental and other rights
Jurisdiction	Throughout India	Within state territory
Discretion	Cannot refuse	Can refuse discretionally

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Article 32 has been used innovatively for PIL:

• Allows any public-spirited person to approach court
• Relaxation of locus standi requirement
• Epistolary jurisdiction (letter treated as petition)
• Used for protecting rights of marginalized sections

Suspension During Emergency

Article 359 allows suspension of Article 32 during National Emergency. However, after 44th Amendment (1978), the right to approach court for Article 21 and 20 violations cannot be suspended even during emergency.

Landmark Cases

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): First case under Article 32
• A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976): Suspension during Emergency (overruled in effect)
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Epistolary jurisdiction and PIL
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): PIL for bonded laborers

Contemporary Relevance

• Tool for judicial activism
• Protection of marginalized communities
• Environmental protection through PIL
• Government accountability
• Human rights enforcement