Article-32: Related

Cases
Name: Md Quzal Jawed
Class Roll: 37
University Roll: 12200121028
B. Tech in CSE, 5th, 3rd
 Index
SL No. Subjects
1. Introduction
2. Constitution of India
3. Fundamental Rights of Indian Citizen
4. Supreme Court
5. Writs
6. Case Study
8. Conclusion
9. References

Article 32:Related Cases 2

Introduction
”Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere” – Martin Luther King Jr.

Article 32 states:

• Individuals have the right to approach the

Supreme Court(SC) seeking enforcement of
other fundamental rights recognized by the
Constitution.

• The SC has power to issue directions or orders

or writs.

• The right to move the SC shall not be

suspended except during a national emergency

• Supreme Court has jurisdiction to enforce the

fundamental rights against private bodies and
individuals and award compensation for the
violation of the fundamental rights. It can
exercise its jurisdiction Suo moto, or on the
basis of PIL(Public Interest Litigation).

Article 32:Related Cases 3

Constitution of
India
• The Constitution of India(adopted on January 26,
1950) is the supreme legal document that
governs the country, and it is based on a written
framework consisting of articles, schedules, and
amendments.

• In the Indian Constitution, an "article" refers to a

numbered segment or provision that contains
specific provisions, rules, and guidelines
pertaining to various aspects of governance,
rights, and responsibilities in India.

• The Constitution of India starts with a preamble

followed by 448 articles in 25 parts , 12
schedules, and 104 amendments (as of now).

Article 32:Related Cases 4

Fundamental Rights of Indian Citizen
Equality
• In Fundamental Rights are essential human rights [Article:14-18]
that are guaranteed to every citizen by the
constitution of a country. These rights are
considered fundamental because they are inherent
Freedom
to individuals and protect their dignity, freedom, [Article:19-22]
and equality.
Exploitation
• The fundamental rights are guaranteed by the
constitution, not only against the action of [Article:23-24]
Supreme
Executive, but also against the action of
Court
Legislature. Any act of the Executive or of the Religion
Legislature, which takes away or abridges any of
rights, shall be void and court is empowered to Constitutional [Article:25-28]
declare it as void. Remedies
[Article:32] Educational
• The Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of
[Article:29-30]
the Constitution (Articles 12-35).Hence, Part III of
the Constitution is described as the Magna Carta of
India. Cultural
[Article:29-30]

Article 32:Related Cases 5

Supreme Court
• Writs are a written order from the Supreme
Court or High Court that commands
constitutional remedies for Indian Citizens
against the violation of their fundamental
rights.
• They are often used to direct individuals,
organizations or government officials to
carry out certain tasks or appear before the
court. Writs severe various purposes, such
as enforcing rights, demanding compliance,
or initiating legal proceedings.
• The Supreme Court of India is the defender
of the fundamental rights of the citizens.
For that, it has original and wide powers. It
issues 5 kinds of writs under Article 32.

Article 32:Related Cases 6

Writs  Habeas Corpus:
Habeas corpus is Latin for 'to have the body'. It is a recourse in law through
which a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request
that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the
prisoner to court, to determine whether the detention is lawful.

Habeas corpus has certain limitations. It is technically only a procedural

remedy; it is a guarantee against any detention that is forbidden by law, but it does not
necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial. So if an
imposition such as internment without trial is permitted by the law, then habeas
corpus may not be a useful remedy.

Any prisoner, or another person acting on their behalf, may petition the court,
or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person
other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado.

The writ of habeas corpus was described in the eighteenth century by William
Blackstone as a "great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement".

It is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the

custodian and demands that a prisoner be brought before the court, and that the
custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the
custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian is acting beyond
their authority, then the prisoner must be released.

Article 32:Related Cases 7

Writs  Mandamus:
Mandamus is Latin for ''we command''. It is a judicial remedy in the form
of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or
public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is
obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public
duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty.

For the (enforcement of fundamental rights). Whenever a public officer

or a Government has done some act which violates the fundamental right of a
person, the Court would issue a writ of mandamus restraining the public officer or
the Government from enforcing that order or doing that act against the person
whose fundamental right has been infringed.

Prohibition:
Prohibition means “to forbid”. A writ of prohibition is used to prevent an
inferior court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body from exceeding its jurisdiction in cases
pending before it or acting contrary to the rules of natural justice or acting beyond the
scope of its authority.

This writ directs a subordinate to stop doing something the law prohibits. It is
issued by the Supreme Court or a High Court to compel inferior courts to keep within the
limits of their jurisdiction. The writ can be issued only when the proceedings are pending
in a court. When the court, before whom the matter is pending, has ceased to exist, in
that condition too, the writ of prohibition will not lie because there can be no
proceedings on which it can operate but if the court is functioning, the writ can be
issued at any stage of the proceeding before the inferior court or tribunal.
Article 32:Related Cases 8
Writs  Cetiorari:
Certiorari is Latin for “To be made certain”. It is used to quash the orders or
decisions of an inferior court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body when it is found to be
acting without jurisdiction or in excess of its authority. It is a court process to seek
judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency.

Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a

superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court
for review.

The Parliament of India has the authority to give a similar certiorari power to
any other court to enforce the fundamental rights, in addition to the certiorari power of
the Supreme Court.

In addition to the power to issue certiorari to protect fundamental rights, the

Supreme Court and the High Courts all have jurisdiction to issue certiorari for the
protection of other legal rights.

The conditions necessary for the issue of the writ of certiorari are:

(i) There should be a tribunal or officer having legal authority to determine questions
affecting rights of subjects and having a duty to act judicially.

(ii) Such tribunal or officer must have acted without jurisdiction or in excess of the
legal
authority vested in such quasi-judicial authority, or in contravention of the rules of
natural justice.
Article 32:Related Cases 9
Writs  Quo Warranto:
Quo Warranto is Latin for ‘by what authority’. This writ requires the person
to whom it is directed, to show what authority they have for exercising some right,
power, or franchise they claim to hold. Mainly, to question the right or authority of a
person holding a public office.

If the court finds that the person is holding the office unlawfully or without
the required qualifications, the court may order their removal from the office.
So basically it lies against the person who is not entitled to hold an office of public
nature and is only an usurper of the office. Such a person is required to show, by what
authority he is entitled to hold that office.

The challenge can be made on the grounds such as he does not fulfil the
required qualifications or suffers from any disqualification debarring him to hold such an
office.

A writ of quo warranto lies only when the appointment is contrary to a

statutory provision. However, this writ cannot be issued against a ministerial office.

The conditions necessary for the issue of a writ of quo warranto are as follows:

(i) The office must be public and it must be created by a statute or by the constitution
itself.

(ii) The office must be a substantive one and not merely the function or employment of a
servant at the will and during the pleasure of another.

Article 32:Related Cases 10

Case Study
Statement: Latika Kumari vs State of Uttar Pradesh And Others, Supreme Court of India, Nov 12,
2013.

“Lalita Kumari was a minor girl who was kidnapped, following which her father, Bhola Kamat, filed a Habeas
Corpus petition in the Supreme Court.”

Victim’s Father: “He alleged that even though he had submitted a written report to the officer-in- charge of the police
station concerned, no action was taken. An FIR was filed only after the matter reached the superintendent of police.”

Judges: “Interpreting Section 154(1) of the Code strictly and gave the word “shall” its natural meaning, holding that it
is mandatory to register an FIR if the information given to the police discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
We also hold that the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed
with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence.”

Judges : “We reject the contention that a preliminary inquiry is necessary before the registration of an FIR, holding
that it would reduce the registration of FIR to a mechanical act. We also hold that the right of the accused under Article
21 of the Constitution is protected if the FIR is registered first and then the investigation is conducted in accordance
with the provisions of law.”

Article 32:Related Cases 11

Case Study
Verdict:
• The Supreme Court held that the
registration of an FIR is mandatory under
Section 154 of the Code if the information
discloses commission of a cognizable
offence and no preliminary inquiry is
permissible in such a situation.
• The Court also directed that all information
relating to cognizable offences, whether
resulting in registration of FIR or leading to
an inquiry, must be mandatorily and
meticulously reflected in the General
Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary of the
police station.

Article 32:Related Cases 12

Case Study
Statement: Mamta Rani vs Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 713/2023.

“A Public Interest Litigation(PIL) was filed under Section 32 of the Constitution of India by practicing
Advocate Mamta Rani to seek revocation of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification
in respect of feature film ‘Adipurush’ for hurting religious sentiments and for distorting the sacred text.”

Advocate_1: “She argued that the movie's portrayal of Hindu deities violated the statutory provisions outlined in
Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. ”

Advocate_2(Advocate Ratnesh Kumar Shukla) : “He, representing the petitioner, argued that the film depicted the
deities in a detestable manner. He stressed the need for a certain level of tolerance towards creative
representations.”

Judges: “Why should we entertain this under 32? The cinematography act provides for the method to get certificate.
Everybody now is touchy about everything. Every time they will come before the Supreme Court for it. Is everything to
be scrutinized by us? The level of tolerance for films, books, paintings keeps on getting down. Now people are hurt
maybe sometimes genuinely, maybe sometimes not. But we will not start entertaining them under Article 32. ”

Article 32:Related Cases 13

Case Study

Advocate_1: “The petitioner contended that the CBFC had not adhered to the required guidelines before
granting the censor certificate.”

Judges: “we would like to maintained our stance on not entertaining this PIL .”

Article 32:Related Cases 14

Case Study
Verdict:
• Justice SK Kaul pointed out that cinematographic
representations may not be an exact replica of
religious texts and that artistic freedom must be
balanced with limits.
• To maintain this balance, the CBFC was constituted as
a regulatory body. In the present case, the certificate
was issued and there are stated to be even
subsequently certain modifications made. It is not
appropriate that for each person’s sensitivities, this
Court should interfere, specially under Article 32 of
Constitution of India.
• The Court should not become some kind of an
appellate authority. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.

Article 32:Related Cases 15

Case Study
Statement: Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State of Uttar Pradesh And Others, W.P.(C) No. 217/2018, Oct 17
2022.

“While disposing of a writ petition filed by a former Additional Advocate General of the State of Uttar Pradesh
seeking writ of Mandamus against the State Government to clear the bills of his outstanding fees, the Supreme
Court expressed doubt whether such a petition can be entertained in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India, especially when the entitlement of the petitioner to the fee has been disputed. A bench
comprised of Justice AS Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol was formed to handle this petition.”

Petitioner: “The petitioner appearing in person apprised the Bench that similarly situated officers of State Governments who
have approached the Apex Court have been granted relief. ”

Judges: “Justice Oka pointed out that in the instant case an order was passed on 23.04.2018 which reflects that according to
the State Government all the outstanding bills have been disbursed to the petitioner. It was also emphasized upon by the
Judge that the entitlement of the petitioners to the fees was disputed. ”

Judges: “What is the fundamental right that is affected if you are not paid fees by the State? ”

Article 32:Related Cases 16

Case Study
Petitioner: “This is my hard earned money.”

Judges: “We understand your predicament but still you cannot file a petitioner under Article 32 to recover fees. Take
recourse of proper remedy. File a suit and recover the money. We will not allow a law officer of the state to file a writ
petition under Article 32 to recover his fees. By filing this you have already got a substantial amount. You should be happy. ”

Article 32:Related Cases 17

Case Study
Verdict:
• The Court rejected the appeal of the plaintiff and
redirected him to other alternative routes.

• The Supreme Court pointed out that Article 32 could

not be used in such cases.

Article 32:Related Cases 18

Conclusion
Recently, former CJI S.A. Bobde during a hearing of Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan’s habeas corpus plea, said that
the court is trying to discourage petitions filed under Article 32. The reason cited was heavy workload due to the
direct filing of petitions.
The former CJI suggested that cases regarding Article 32 should first be introduced to High Courts, and then they may
proceed to Supreme Court if need be. This reduces the workload on the Apex Court, which is responsible for hearing
pleas from all across the nation.
He even repeated the comments the next day during another writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution,
and was found saying that the Court was trying to cut down on Article 32 cases, and the aforementioned petition was
not appreciated.
“There is no doubt that if a citizen of India is deterred in any way from moving the court in exercise of his right under
Article 32, it would amount to a serious interference in the administration of justice in the country,” the former CJI
was reported to have said.
His remarks were, however, met with severe criticism from scholars and practitioners of law for Article 32 is
considered one of the constitution's basic features.

Article 32:Related Cases 19

Thank you
Md Quzal Jawed
References
• https://www.casemine.com/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India