Delay By Itself Cannot Veto A Writ Petition Under Article 32 When Fundamental Rights Are Clearly At Stake
đź”· Legal Context: Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Article 32 guarantees the right to constitutional remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights.
It allows any person whose fundamental rights are violated to directly approach the Supreme Court through a writ petition.
The Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 is “sacred” and cannot be lightly denied.
đź”· Principle: Delay Alone Cannot Bar Enforcement of Fundamental Rights
Delay or laches (undue delay) is generally a factor courts consider in civil and criminal cases to prevent stale claims.
However, when it comes to fundamental rights, the courts have consistently held that delay alone cannot be a ground to reject or veto a writ petition under Article 32.
The rationale is that fundamental rights are supreme, and their violation requires remedy regardless of the delay.
The Court may consider delay in some cases to see if the delay has caused prejudice, but it will not deny relief solely on that basis.
đź”· Detailed Explanation
Supremacy of Fundamental Rights:
Fundamental rights are the core of the Constitution and are inviolate and must be protected promptly.
Article 32 as the “Heart and Soul” of the Constitution:
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the "heart and soul" of the Constitution because it provides immediate and direct access to the Supreme Court to protect fundamental rights.
Delay Cannot be Allowed to Defeat Fundamental Rights:
If delay were allowed to defeat a fundamental right claim, it would be tantamount to depriving a citizen of the protection guaranteed by the Constitution.
Exceptions and Judicial Discretion:
Delay may be considered in exceptional circumstances, especially where:
Delay causes prejudice to the opposite party.
The delay indicates abuse of process or mala fide intent.
But, where the violation of fundamental rights is clear and serious, delay is not a bar.
đź”· Leading Case Laws
1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360
Facts: Several prisoners were detained for years without trial.
Held: The Supreme Court observed that delay or laches cannot stand in the way of enforcing fundamental rights. The right to speedy trial and personal liberty are fundamental rights.
2. State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865
Held: Delay is not an absolute bar to entertaining a writ petition if fundamental rights are infringed.
The Supreme Court has power to condone delay if the violation of fundamental rights is manifest.
3. K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 1590
The Court held that delay, per se, cannot defeat a petition filed under Article 32.
It observed that fundamental rights are the backbone of the Constitution, and procedural technicalities should not bar their enforcement.
4. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
Though the case primarily dealt with sexual harassment at the workplace, the Supreme Court held that delay cannot be a reason to refuse relief where fundamental rights violations are serious.
5. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420
The Court stated that delay does not operate as a bar in writ jurisdiction where the violation of fundamental rights is established.
đź”· Important Observations from Jurisprudence
The Court often adopts a liberal approach in writ petitions under Article 32.
Delay is a factor but cannot be the sole ground to refuse relief.
The court balances the equities, and where the violation is serious and continuous, delay is disregarded.
Article 32 is meant to provide speedy and effective remedy for fundamental rights.
đź”· Summary
| Point | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right Under Article 32 | Direct access to Supreme Court for fundamental rights violations |
| Effect of Delay | Delay alone is not a ground to reject writ petition |
| Judicial Approach | Liberal, balancing prejudice and seriousness of violation |
| Exceptions | Delay showing mala fide, abuse of process, or serious prejudice |
| Ultimate Goal | Enforcement of fundamental rights without procedural barriers |
🔚 Conclusion
Delay, by itself, cannot veto or bar a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution when fundamental rights are clearly at stake. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 is a constitutional guarantee to provide immediate and effective remedy to protect these rights. While delay may be a relevant factor in certain cases, it cannot be allowed to defeat the fundamental constitutional mandate of protecting citizens’ rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments