Difference Between Article 32 and Article 226
Article 32 vs Article 226 – Overview
| Feature | Article 32 | Article 226 |
|---|---|---|
| Provision | Right to Constitutional Remedies; Supreme Court can issue writs | High Courts’ power to issue writs for enforcement of rights and legal remedies |
| Type of Jurisdiction | Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court | Original jurisdiction of High Courts |
| Scope | Primarily Fundamental Rights | Fundamental Rights and other legal rights |
| Courts Involved | Supreme Court only | High Courts only |
| Writs Covered | Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto | Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto |
| Against Whom | State, authorities | State, authorities, private parties (for legal rights) |
| Part of Constitution | Part III (Fundamental Rights) | Part III (Fundamental Rights) & High Court powers |
| Flexibility | Can only enforce Fundamental Rights | Can enforce Fundamental Rights and other legal rights under ordinary law |
| Example | Challenging unlawful detention violating Article 21 | Challenging arbitrary administrative action, illegal transfer, or detention |
Detailed Explanation
Article 32 – Right to Constitutional Remedies
Nature of Jurisdiction:
Supreme Court has original and appellate jurisdiction to enforce Fundamental Rights.
Considered the heart and soul of Part III of the Constitution (as stated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar).
Scope:
Limited to Fundamental Rights.
Cannot enforce other legal or statutory rights outside Part III.
Cases:
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, Bihar (1979) – Writ of Habeas Corpus issued to protect personal liberty of undertrial prisoners under Article 32.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 and affirmed the role of Article 32 in protecting personal liberty.
Significance:
Provides a direct remedy against violation of Fundamental Rights.
Considered a guarantee of justice for citizens.
Article 226 – High Courts’ Writ Jurisdiction
Nature of Jurisdiction:
High Courts can issue writs to enforce Fundamental Rights and other legal rights.
Scope is broader than Article 32 as it covers statutory rights, not just Fundamental Rights.
Scope:
Enforces Fundamental Rights (like Article 32)
Enforces legal rights under ordinary law, e.g., administrative actions, service matters, and quasi-judicial orders.
Cases:
K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1976) – Writ issued under Article 226 to challenge arbitrary administrative action.
R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) – Article 226 used to ensure fairness in statutory contracts.
Significance:
Provides quick, effective relief against violations of both Fundamental Rights and statutory rights.
More flexible and accessible than Article 32 for citizens.
Key Differences
Court:
Article 32 = Supreme Court
Article 226 = High Court
Scope of Rights:
Article 32 = Only Fundamental Rights
Article 226 = Fundamental Rights + other legal/statutory rights
Accessibility:
Article 226 = More accessible; can file in local High Court
Article 32 = Only at Supreme Court, which may involve procedural complexity
Flexibility:
Article 226 allows writs against private bodies exercising public functions, whereas Article 32 is primarily against State action.
Remedies:
Article 226 offers broader remedies than Article 32 due to its coverage of legal rights outside Fundamental Rights.
Conclusion
Article 32 is the fundamental safeguard for Fundamental Rights, providing a direct Supreme Court remedy.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to protect Fundamental Rights and other legal rights, making it more flexible and widely used.
Landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi (1978), Hussainara Khatoon (1979), and R.D. Shetty (1979) illustrate the complementary nature of Articles 32 and 226 in protecting citizens’ rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments