Dr. Ambedkar had once said, “If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important; an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity; I could not refer to any other article except article 32. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it “.
Individuals have the right under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to petition the Supreme Court for justice if they believe their rights have been unfairly denied. Article 32 of the Constitution allows the Parliament to entrust any other court with the competence of the Supreme Court, as long as it is within its jurisdiction. Article 32, clause 2, states that the Supreme Court has the authority to issue instructions, orders, or writs, including habeas corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari writs. These could be useful for enforcing any of the rights granted by this section.
The nature of writ jurisdiction provided under article 32 is directionally. The five important factors guiding this discretion are locus standi, alternative relief, res judicata, questions of the fact and laches.
One of the most essential writs for personal liberty is habeas corpus, which attempts to prevent persons from being injured by the administrative system and to defend individuals’ freedom from arbitrary governmental actions. The court’s power is seen as a valuable and indisputable component of the rule of law. This writ has been referred to as a significant constitutional privilege or the first line of defence for civil liberty. The first habeas corpus case in India was in Kerala, when P.Ranjan, the victim’s father, filed a petition on behalf of his son, who had been detained and tortured to death by Kerala police. Then in the case of ADM Jabalpur (v) Shrikant Shukla, which was known as the habeas corpus case, it was held that the writ of not be suspended even during emergency.
The phrase mandamus literally means “order.” It is a court order for a public authority to execute a public obligation that is related to its position. When a legal requirement is placed on a public office to which the petitioner has a legal right, it is issued. The petitioner must have a legally protected and judicially enforceable right. Mandamus is a writ of mandamus that is used to compel someone to do something. In union of India (v) Namit Sharma, the apex court held that mandamus cannot be issued to direct the making of rules where the statute conferred discretion on the authority.
The holder of a public office is served with a quo warranto, which requires him to prove that he has the power to hold that office. The goal is to confirm that the judiciary has authority over nominations to public posts. In the case of GD Karkare (v) TL Shavde, the court issued a writ of quo warranto against the state’s advocate general, who was judged unfit to occupy the position. In the case of Anand Bihari (v) Ram Sahay, the court held that the office in question must be a public one.
The word prohibition refers to the act of prohibiting something. This writ is intended to keep lower courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction by preventing them from exceeding their jurisdiction or behaving in a way that is contradictory to natural justice norms. In case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd (v) Collector of customs, a writ of prohibition was passed during directing an inferior tribunal prohibiting it from continuing with the proceedings on the ground that the proceeding is without or in excess of its jurisdiction or in contradiction with the laws of the land, statutes or otherwise.
Certiorari is Latin for “certified.” It is given when there is an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and the matter is decided on that basis. A writ of certiorari can be issued for a variety of reasons. It is issued to quasi-judicial or subordinate courts if they operate without jurisdiction, in excess, or in breach of the concept of natural justice. In Surya Devi Rai (v) Ramchandra Rai and others, the Supreme Court has explained the meaning and the ambit of this writ. It was also explained that the writ of certiorari is always available against inferior courts but not equal or higher courts.
Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution give the Supreme Court and the High Court, respectively, two independent but parallel writ jurisdiction provisions. Article 32 has been enshrined as a fundamental right, and it establishes a constitutional remedy for fundamental rights violations. To grant or not to grant relief is the discretion of the Supreme Court, but can be challenged for violation of fundamental rights.
When there is a miscarriage of justice, the essential goal remains the same. The importance of rights cannot be overstated, and judges must exercise this power with caution because they have been granted such broad authority.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at email@example.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge