Article 32 of the Indian Constitution provides a direct avenue for individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. This article empowers the Supreme Court to issue various writs—such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto—to ensure the protection of these rights. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, aptly termed Article 32 as its “heart and soul,” highlighting its pivotal role in safeguarding individual liberties.
Scope and Significance of Article 32
Article 32 serves as a fundamental mechanism for the protection of individual rights against any unlawful actions by the state. It ensures that citizens have a guaranteed remedy for the violation of fundamental rights, reinforcing the commitment to justice and the rule of law. The Supreme Court, through this provision, acts as the guardian of fundamental rights, maintaining the sanctity of the Constitution.
A pertinent question arises: Can a High Court judgment be declared illegal under Article 32? The Supreme Court has addressed this issue, clarifying that Article 32 is not the appropriate route for such challenges. In the case of Vimal Babu Dhumadiya & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Supreme Court vide its order dated 17.01.2025 held that a High Court judgment cannot be declared as illegal under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The appropriate recourse for individuals aggrieved by a High Court decision is to file a petition for recall of the order or to challenge it under Article 136 of the Constitution, which allows for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Article 136 of the Constitution provides the Supreme Court with discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. This provision serves as an alternative remedy for individuals seeking to challenge High Court judgments, ensuring that there is a pathway to address grievances without misusing Article 32.
The Supreme Court, in various landmark judgments, has elucidated the scope and significance of Article 32:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case expanded the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, establishing that any law depriving a person of these rights must be just, fair, and reasonable. The Court emphasized the interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21, forming the ‘golden triangle’ of the Constitution.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): In this earlier case, the Court had taken a restrictive view of personal liberty under Article 21. However, the Maneka Gandhi judgment overruled this perspective, leading to a more expansive understanding of fundamental rights.
Conclusion
Article 32 stands as a testament to India’s commitment to upholding fundamental rights, providing citizens with a direct route to the Supreme Court for redressal. However, it is imperative to understand its boundaries; it is not a mechanism to challenge High Court judgments. For such purposes, the Constitution delineates specific remedies, notably under Article 136. This structured approach ensures a balanced and orderly judicial process, maintaining the integrity of the legal system while safeguarding individual rights.