Ashish Ranjan Tiwari, Amity Law School, Amity University, Kolkata
Introduction:
The Indian Constitution guarantees the protection of fundamental rights to its citizens. These rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution and are considered the cornerstone of a democratic society. In order to effectively enforce these fundamental rights, the Constitution provides for two distinct remedies - Article 321 and Article 226. While both provisions enable individuals to seek redress for the violation of their rights, there exists a significant difference between the two. Article 32 grants the right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, while Article 226 confers the power on High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights. This article aims to explore the reasons behind this distinction and analyse why the right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is considered a fundamental right, whereas the right to approach the High Courts under Article 226 is not.
The Nature of Article 32:
Article 32 of the Constitution is often referred to as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution. It guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, being the highest court of the land, is entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens. Article 32 confers an extraordinary jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to issue writs, directions, or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is considered a fundamental right in itself, as it ensures the protection and preservation of other fundamental rights.
Comments