Article 32

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is often regarded as the "heart and soul" of
the Constitution, as described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. It provides the right to
constitutional remedies, empowering individuals to approach the Supreme
Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III
of the Constitution. It provides constitutional remedies that are legal
mechanisms provided by constitution of our country to safeguard and enforce fr.
These are remedies available to individuals if their fundamental rights are
violated.

Writs

A writ is a formal legal order issued by a court directing an individual,

organization, or authority to perform or refrain from performing a specific act. It
is a constitutional remedy designed to protect fundamental rights and ensure the
rule of law. Writs have their origins in English legal history and have been
adopted into the Indian legal system to uphold justice. Under Articles 32 and
226 of the Indian Constitution, writs can be issued by the Supreme Court and
High Courts, respectively. While the Supreme Court can issue writs exclusively
for enforcing fundamental rights, the High Courts have a broader jurisdiction
and can issue writs to enforce fundamental rights as well as other legal rights.
A writ petition is the formal application filed in a court requesting the issuance
of a writ. It serves as a legal mechanism for individuals or entities to challenge
violations of their rights or instances of illegal actions by public authorities.

1. Habeas Corpus

Literal meaning to have a body

It requires the detaining authority to produce the detained individual before a
court and justify the legality of the detention. If the detention is found to be
without lawful basis, the court orders the immediate release of the individual.
Habeas corpus is primarily used when a person is wrongfully confined by the
state, a private individual, or any authority. It safeguards against arbitrary
arrests, ensuring that no person is deprived of liberty without due process of
law. This writ is non-suspendable even during emergencies under Article 359,
highlighting its critical importance in upholding the rule of law and protecting
fundamental rights.

2. Quo Warranto

The writ of quo warranto is a legal remedy used to challenge the legality of a
person's claim to a public office. Derived from Latin, meaning "by what
authority," this writ compels the individual holding the position to demonstrate
the legal basis or authority under which they occupy the office. If the court finds
that the individual has no valid right to the position—either due to non-
fulfillment of eligibility criteria, lack of proper appointment, or violation of law
—the person can be ousted from the office. Quo warranto serves as a vital tool
to ensure that public offices are not usurped or occupied unlawfully and that
only those qualified and legally entitled hold such positions. It can be invoked
by any person, not just the aggrieved party, making it a public-interest remedy.

3. Mandamus

The writ of mandamus, derived from Latin meaning "we command," is issued
by a court to compel a public authority, official, or government body to perform
a duty that is mandatory under the law. It is a remedial writ used when a public
official or authority fails to act or refuses to perform a legal obligation that
directly affects the rights of an individual or the public. Mandamus cannot be
issued to private entities, as it is specifically directed toward authorities
performing public duties. It is also not applicable in cases where the duty is
discretionary rather than mandatory. Mandamus acts as a safeguard against
administrative inaction

4. Certiorari
Derived from Latin, meaning "to be informed,". The writ of certiorari is issued
by a higher court to a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority, directing
it to transfer a case or record for review. It is issued when the lower court or
authority acts beyond its jurisdiction, violates procedural rules, or commits a
legal error that affects the justice of the case. Certiorari is both corrective and
supervisory in nature, allowing the higher court to quash an illegal or invalid
order or decision. Acting without jurisdiction, violating procedural law,
commits legal error.

5. Prohibition

Derived from Latin, meaning "to forbid," this writ aims to prevent unlawful
actions before they occur, ensuring that lower authorities do not exceed their
legal powers. s a preventive remedy issued by a higher court to a lower court,
tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority to stop them from proceeding with a case
that falls outside their jurisdiction or involves an illegal act. It is issued when a
lower authority: (1) acts without jurisdiction, (2) violates principles of natural
justice, or (3) engages in an act contrary to the law. Prohibition is typically
issued during the ongoing proceedings of a case, not after a decision is
rendered, distinguishing it from the writ of certiorari.

Locus Standi & PIL

The concept of locus standi refers to the legal capacity or standing of a person
to approach a court and seek judicial relief. In simple terms, it determines
whether an individual has a sufficient connection or legitimate interest in the
matter they are raising. Traditionally, under the adversarial legal system, only
the aggrieved party—the person directly affected by a violation of rights or
legal obligations—had the locus standi to file a case. This ensured that courts
dealt only with genuine grievances and avoided frivolous litigation. However,
with the evolution of public interest litigation (PIL), particularly in India, the
strict application of locus standi has been relaxed. In case of S.P Gupta v
Union of India known as First Judge’s Transfer case marked a turning point in
the liberalization of locus standi. The Supreme Court held that any member of
the public or social action group acting in good faith could approach the court
for enforcing the rights of others, particularly in cases involving public interest.
Justice Bhagwati emphasized that PIL is a tool to address issues affecting
disadvantaged sections who are unable to approach the court themselves. This
case laid the foundation for PIL in India and expanded the scope of locus standi
beyond traditional boundaries.

Judicial Review

Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of

legislative enactments and executive orders. If such acts are found to be
inconsistent with the Constitution, the judiciary has the authority to declare
them invalid. Judicial review ensures that the organs of government function
within their constitutional limits and safeguards fundamental rights by
preventing arbitrary action. It is an essential feature of the basic structure
doctrine, meaning it cannot be taken away even through constitutional
amendments. The doctrine of judicial review in India is drawn from Article 13,
which states that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights
shall be void. It also stems from Articles 32, 226, and 136, empowering courts
to enforce fundamental rights and address constitutional grievances.

Special Leave Petition

Special Leave Petition (SLP) is a unique mechanism under Article 136 of the
Indian Constitution, empowering the Supreme Court to grant special leave to
appeal against any judgment, decree, or order from any court or tribunal in
India, except those related to military courts. This extraordinary provision gives
the Supreme Court wide discretionary powers to address injustices and ensure
uniformity in the interpretation of the law. SLP acts as a safety valve for
litigants who may not have other avenues of appeal, provided there are
substantial questions of law, gross injustice, or violations of natural justice.
The scope of SLP is exceptionally broad, but it is not an automatic right of
appeal. The Supreme Court has consistently clarified that SLP is granted only
when the case involves:
1. A significant question of constitutional law.
2. Issues of public importance.
3. Gross injustice or error in the lower court's decision.

A landmark case illustrating the principles of SLP is Pritam Singh v. State

(1950), where the Supreme Court held that Article 136 is designed to meet
exceptional situations where the requirements of justice demand interference by
the highest court. The Court emphasized that SLP is not intended to convert the
Supreme Court into a general court of appeal but serves as a safeguard against
serious miscarriage of justice.SLP is filed directly in the Supreme Court within
90 days of the lower court's judgment or within 60 days if special leave is
sought against an interlocutory order. If the Court grants leave, the case is
converted into an appeal and heard on its merits. This provision ensures that the
Supreme Court remains a guardian of justice and a protector of constitutional
rights.

Curative petition

A Curative Petition is a rare and extraordinary legal remedy devised by the

Supreme Court of India to prevent gross miscarriage of justice even after the
exhaustion of all conventional remedies, including a review petition. It is not
expressly mentioned in the Constitution but was conceptualized by the Supreme
Court in the landmark case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).

The curative petition process is considered a mechanism of last resort and is not
an appeal in disguise. It’s designed for cases where the Court’s prior decision is
so flawed that ignoring it would result in a serious miscarriage of justice,
thereby undermining the rule of law.

The case involved Ashok Hurra (the appellant) and Rupa Hurra (the
respondent), who had been married for several years but had separated. First
case came to SC as appeal SC decided. Then review also decided. Then
petitioner not being happy with it challenged the judgement of the review under
Article 32 by a writ petition. What used to happen earlier was once SC used to
decide on a review petition then such judgement was said to have attain finality.

Whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final

judgment or order of the Supreme Court, after dismissal of Review
Petition, either under Article 32 or otherwise?

Then came the concept of curative petition if there is gross injustice, error of
law and violation of principles of natural justice then in such a case Sc can
correct its own judgement by filing a curative petition. It can be done in rarest
of rare cases. A SENIOR ADVOCATE CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED TO BE
ATTACHEDSHOW CASE FIT FOR BEING CURATIVE PETITION.
 Article 51 A

The Fundamental Duties are enshrined in Article 51A of the Indian

Constitution and were introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, inspired
by the Soviet Constitution. These were introduced into the Indian Constitution
to instill a sense of responsibility and discipline among citizens. To instill
patriotism, loyalty, and commitment to national integrity, fostering unity in
a diverse nation.

 Respect the Constitution, National Flag, and National Anthem.

 Uphold the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
 Defend the country and render national service when required.
 Promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood.
 Preserve the rich heritage of India's composite culture.
 Protect and improve the natural environment, including forests,
lakes, rivers, and wildlife

AIIMS Student Union vs AIIMS

The case revolved around the challenge to AIIMS' institutional reservation

policy, which allocated 33% of seats to in-house candidates along with an
additional 50% discipline-wise reservation, leaving no seats for the open
general category in certain disciplines. The petitioners, meritorious candidates
aspiring to postgraduate medical education, argued that this reservation scheme
violated Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating against candidates
solely based on their institutional affiliation, thereby undermining merit and
excellence in medical education. They contended that such reservations were
arbitrary and unjust, as they not only excluded deserving general category
candidates but also compromised the principles of equality and fairness. The
court, while assessing this policy, considered the broader constitutional
framework, including Fundamental Duties enshrined in Article 51A to strive for
excellence and develop scientific temper and humanism is paramount in the
field of medical education, which has a direct impact on national health and
progress

The Court focused on balancing equality, merit, and the purpose of reservations
in education. The court acknowledged that reservations are important to help
weaker sections of society overcome disadvantages and achieve success.
However, it emphasized that such policies should not undermine fairness or the
quality of education, especially in critical fields like healthcare, where
excellence is vital for public welfare. The court pointed out that institutional
reservations, like the one challenged in this case, gave undue preference to
students from AIIMS at the expense of deserving general category candidates.
This violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution,
which requires that all citizens be treated fairly. The judgment also highlighted
the importance of Fundamental Duties, particularly the duty to strive for
excellence under Article 51A(j). It stated that the state has a responsibility to
ensure that merit is upheld, especially in areas like public health, while
addressing the needs of disadvantaged groups

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

The case arose after a dangerous oleum gas leak from the Shri Ram Foods and
Fertilizers Industries in Delhi in 1985, which caused one death and affected
several others in a densely populated area. Environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta
filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arguing that hazardous industries should
be held accountable for any harm caused, and that operating such industries in
populated areas violated the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, introduced the principle of
absolute liability, holding that industries engaged in inherently dangerous
activities must bear full responsibility for any harm caused, regardless of
negligence. This principle went beyond the existing strict liability doctrine by
eliminating exceptions such as acts of God or third-party interference. The
Court also emphasized that the right to a clean and safe environment is integral
to the right to life, and thus the state has a duty to protect public health and
safety. Additionally, the Court ordered the relocation of the hazardous industry
and directed the government to enforce stricter regulations for industries
handling dangerous substances. The case also laid the foundation for the
polluter pays principle, requiring industries to compensate for environmental
damage.