“Law Master’s Publication”
“Right to constitutional remedies”
Prof. .Santosh D. Bhosale
85
Administrative action). Art. 32 and 226 provide a remedy for violating any fundamental
rights by administrative action (officers of State). These two articles make fundamental
rights real, and the maxim 'ubi jus ibi remedium' is true. Therefore, Dr Ambedkar, one of
the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution, said that "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 article except this one (Art. 32) it
is the very soul of the constitution and the very heart of it". It shows that the founders of
our Constitution were well aware of the part played by prerogative writs in England;
therefore, they made specific provisions in the Constitution under Art1. 32 and 226, which
empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue various writs to enforce
fundamental rights.
B) Enforcement of fundamental rights by the Supreme Court (Art. 32):-
Art. 32 is a fundamental right under Part III of the Indian Constitution. Art. 32 (1)
guarantees an individual the right to move to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of
fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 12 to 35 of the Constitution.
Art. 32 (2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue appropriate directions, orders, or
writs, including writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto, and
certiorari.
Thus, Art. 32 provides a guaranteed quick and summary remedy for enforcement of
fundamental rights because a person can go straight to the Supreme Court without having
to undergo the dilatory process of proceeding from the lower to the High Court, unlike
ordinary civil litigation. Supreme Court is thus a protector, guarantor or guardian of
fundamental rights constituted under the Constitution.
C) Enforcement of fundamental rights by the High Court (Art. 226):-
Art. 226 empowers every High Court to issue directions, orders, or writs in the nature
of habeas corpus mandamus, prohibition, quowarranto, and certiorari or any of them.
Under this article, an individual can move to the High Court for enforcement of-
a) fundamental rights, or
b) for any other purpose.
This right under Art. 226 is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court.
However, a writ remedy is not available if an alternative statutory remedy is available to
the aggrieved person. But in Suresh B. Rajepal V/s. Union Bank of India (2008 All M
R)
Held- In every case, the availability of an alternative statutory remedy may not be a
complete bar to the maintainability of the writ petition before the High court under Art.
1 Article