WRIT JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

1. Introduction : The Constitution includes fundamental rights, ensuring that important human liberties are completely safeguarded. A specific legislative provision was incorporated into the Constitution to defend these rights and transform them into actual liberty. As a basic right, Article 32 allowed for the enforcement of these rights, while Article 226 featured a fairly similar provision as a constitutional right. A constitutional declaration of basic rights is meaningless, useless, and worthless unless it is supplemented with effective methods for protecting those rights if and when they are violated. As a result, an aggrieved person has the right to seek remedy for infringement of his or her fundamental rights under Article 32. To put it another way, the right to have one's Fundamental Rights protected is itself a fundamental right. The validity of basic rights is thus established. That is why Article 32 is the most important element in the Constitution, according to Dr. Ambedkar—"an article without which this constitution would be a nullity." It is both the soul and the heart of the Constitution. 2. Article 32 of the constitution : The following four provisions are included in Article 32: 1. The right to bring a case before the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights is guaranteed. 2. The Supreme Court has the authority to issue directions, orders, or writs to enforce any of the fundamental rights. Habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo-warranto are some of the writs that can be granted. 3. Parliament has the authority to provide directions, orders, and writs to any other court. However, this can be done without jeopardizing the Supreme Court's above-mentioned powers. Any other court here does not include high courts because the high courts already have these powers under Article 226. 4. Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, the right to petition the Supreme Court must not be suspended. Thus, during a national emergency, the President has the authority to suspend the right to petition any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights (Article 359). The Supreme Court of India has original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction, which it uses to protect fundamental rights. Article 32 invokes the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction authority, allowing anybody with a complaint that their fundamental right has been violated inside Indian territory to go directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction extends to any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States, or between two or more States since the dispute includes any matter (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or scope of a legal right depends. Furthermore, under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has extensive original jurisdiction over the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It has the power to issue directions, orders, or writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari to enforce them. 3. Types of writs : Writ petitions are used to enforce fundamental rights in the appropriate courts. The types of writs issued are as follows: a. Habeas corpus : The English translation of the Latin phrase "Habeas Corpus" is "You may have the body." The court issues this writ to summon a person who has detained another person to determine under what authority that person has been held. The primary goal of this writ is to offer immediate and rapid relief to a person who is being held illegally by another person. Detention might take place in a prison or private custody. This writ petition can be filed by the person who is wrongfully held, but if that person is unable to do so, another person, such as a friend or relative, can file the writ on the prisoner's behalf. The solitary confinement of Sunil Batra and Charles Sobhraj, who were serving death sentences, was challenged in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration as a violation of Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Constitution. Their letter was considered a writ petition by the court. The Court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus can be issued not just to free a person who has been wrongfully detained, but also to protect him from ill-treatment inside prisons. In Icchu Devi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court stated that in the context of a petition of habeas corpus, the court does not follow stringent pleading standards as a matter of practice. Even a postcard from a detainee might prompt the court to investigate the legitimacy of their arrest. Furthermore, because of Art. 21, the court sets the burden of proof on the detaining authority to prove that the detention is conducted by the law. The case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar gave Habeas Corpus a new dimension. A person who has been unfairly held by the state is entitled to compensation. In Bhim Singh v State of J&K, Bhim Singh, an MLA from the State of J&K, was unlawfully imprisoned and kept in a police station, preventing him from attending the State Legislative Assembly. The Court granted the petitioner Rs.50,000 as compensation for the breach of his constitutional right to personal liberty under Art. 21. b. Mandamus : In common law, this prerogative writ is known as a writ of mandamus, which means "we command" or "we mandate" in Latin. It is given by a higher court to compel a subordinate court or a government official to appropriately fulfill required or purely ministerial tasks. Mandamus is Latin for "the order." Mandamus is an order made by the Supreme Court or a High Court directing any public authority to do or refrain from doing anything, such as performing a public obligation. It is issued against individuals or authorities that fail to execute their required tasks. The official must have a public duty and must fail to do it for the writ of mandamus to be issued. The petitioner for this writ must also have the right to compel the authority to fulfill some obligation. Mandamus can only be awarded where a legal duty is imposed on the authority in issue and the petitioner has a legal right to enforce fulfillment of that duty. A legal right in the petitioner and a matching legal responsibility on the respondent are prerequisites for issuing a writ of mandamus. The execution of the obligation should be mandatory, not discretionary. c. Certiorari It is an order from the Supreme Court or the High Courts to a subordinate Court to withdraw a suit and rule on the legality of the proceedings or to quash the inferior Court's Orders. A Writ of Certiorari can be issued against any subordinate court, as well as any organization performing judicial or quasi-judicial powers. This writ is issued by the supervisory authority. Excessive jurisdiction, lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice standards, mistake of law, or objection to the legal procedure are all reasons for granting certiorari. d. Prohibition The writ, as its name implies, restricts certain actions. This writ is issued by the superior court to subordinate courts or tribunals to prevent them from exceeding their authority or violating natural justice principles. As a result, this writ is an order from the superior court to their lesser courts to keep within their jurisdictional bounds; it is given in both excess and absence of jurisdiction instances. e. Quo Warranto Quo warranto is Latin for "what is your authority?" It is an Order calling into question the authority of a public official. It is issued against the holder of a public office, requiring him to show the authority with which he holds such a position. It is not essential for the petitioner to have experienced personal damage or to seek redress of a personal grievance to submit a quo warranto petition. 4. Public interest litigation: The concept of Locus Standi is a common mode of litigation that states that only the person who has been injured can file a lawsuit in court. PIL (Public Interest Litigation) or SIL (Social Interest Litigation) is a contemporary approach to the Locus Standi of the litigation procedure. The basic goal of PIL is to provide justice to those members of society who might otherwise be unable to pursue it owing to social or economic inequity. In A.B.S.K. Sangh (Rly) v. Union of India, it was decided that the Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway) could file a writ petition under Art. 32 for the redress of a common grievance despite being an unregistered organization. The constitutional jurisprudence, according to Krishna Iyer, J., is access to justice through "class actions," "public interest litigation," and "representative proceedings." The Supreme Court has firmly established the rule governing public interest litigation in the Judges Transfer case. The Court ruled that any member of the public with a "sufficient interest" might petition the Court for the enforcement of other people's constitutional or legal rights and redress of common grievances. The Supreme Court restated the details of PIL's origin and growth in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and established significant criteria for preventing its misuse. The court gave the following instructions to protect the PIL's purity and sanctity: a. The Court must promote genuine and bona fide PILs while effectively discouraging and restricting PILs filed for speculative purposes. b. Before hearing a PIL, the courts should check the petitioner's qualifications prima facie. c. Before hearing a PIL, the Court should be satisfied that the petition's contents are correct on the surface. d. The Court should be convinced that there is a real public interest at stake before considering a PIL. e. The Court should make certain that the petition is of greater public importance and seriousness, and that it takes precedence over other petitions. f. Before hearing a PIL, the Court should make sure it is to redress genuine public damage. The Court shall also ascertain that the PIL was filed for no personal advantage, private motivation, or indirect motive. g. The Court should also guarantee that petitions submitted for extraneous or ulterior motivations are discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or using other creative approaches to reduce frivolous petitions filed for such reasons. 5. Restrictions under Article 32 : a. Res-judicata: The Supreme Court has set a considerable limitation on the use of Article 32 jurisdiction by applying the concept of res judicata, which is based on public policy principles. It is in the public interest for binding decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction to have finality, and persons should not be subjected to the same type of lawsuit repeatedly. As a result, a person cannot file several petitions for the same cause of action under Art 32. b. The doctrine of Laches: Laches or excessive delay on the side of the petitioner may exclude him from filing a writ petition under Art. 32 to vindicate his Fundamental Right. The Court denies the petitioner's request for relief on the grounds of laches unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. As a result, the injured party should file the petition as soon as possible. c. Existence of Alternative Relief: The presence of an alternative relief does not preclude the remedy from being granted under Art. 32. Even under Art 226, the presence of an alternative remedy is not a basis for refusing sufficient redress in circumstances involving fundamental rights violations. Unless the alternative remedy is ineffective for the petitioner, the Supreme Court usually insists on using it. In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, as well as K.K. Kochuni v. State of Madras, it was decided that the presence of an alternative remedy, even under Article 226, is no reason to deny effective redress in situations involving fundamental rights violations. The presence of an alternative remedy does not impede the remedy being granted under section 32. 6. Conclusion : The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of the land; it is essential to the country's survival, and it was created by and for the people. Article 32 is referred to as "the spirit of the constitution and its heart" throughout the Constitution for some reason. If a person is given a right but there is no way to enforce it, the right is worthless. Article 32 is the mechanism that permits the body and spirit to coexist. A writ petition alleging a breach of fundamental rights can be filed with the Supreme Court under Article 32. REFERENCES : 1. http://euroasiapub.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/48ESSJan-18-6065-1.pdf 2. https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.11704 3. https://www.iilsindia.com/study-material/582406_1620622225.pdf 4. https://www.worldwidejournals.com/indian-journal-of-applied-research-(IJAR)/article/article-32-of-the-indian-constitution-an-overview/MTEzODE=/?is=1&b1=181&k=46 5. https://www.jiarm.com/OCT2015/paper24942.pdf https://www.bbau.ac.in/dept/cpgs/TM/Prof.%20Misra%20201.pdf BY:- NAVEEN TALAWAR

WRIT JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT