This article is written by Kirti Patil, KLE Law College, Navi Mumbai, pursing T.Y.LLB during her Internship at LeDroit India.
Abstract
This article compares Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution—both essential mechanisms for enforcing rights. While Article 32 empowers citizens to directly invoke the Supreme Court on breaches of fundamental rights, Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs not only for fundamental rights but also other statutory rights. Through analysis of doctrine, jurisdictional reach, accessibility, and notable case law, this piece assesses which remedy works best in practice.
Introduction
The Constitution of India guarantees citizens certain fundamental rights, forming the foundation of Indian democracy. It also provides specific legal remedies—namely writs—to ensure those rights are enforceable. Articles 32 and 226 are central to upholding the rule of law, but they operate differently in scope, procedure, and real-world use. This article investigates which provision offers more accessible and impactful protection to ordinary individuals.
1. Article 32: Supreme Court’s Writ Power
- Article 32 affirms the right to move the Supreme Court when fundamental rights under Part III are infringed. According to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Article 32 is the “heart and soul” of the Constitution as it ensures meaningful remedies.
- Article 32(2) allows the Supreme Court to issue habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto to enforce those rights.
- Article 32(3) permits Parliament to extend such writ-powers to lower courts under specific conditions.
- Article 32(4) notes that except as permitted in the Constitution, this remedy cannot be suspended—even during emergencies.
2. Article 226: High Courts’ Broader Writ Jurisdiction
- Article 226 empowers every High Court to issue writs for enforcement of both fundamental rights and ordinary legal rights, including statutory rights under state and central laws.
- It can be invoked even if part of the cause of action arises within the court’s geographical territory, thus enabling broader reach in multi-state matters.
- Article 226(3) specifically mandates expedited reconsideration of an interim order granted without notice to the respondent within fourteen days.
- Article 226(4) clarifies that High Court’s power under this article does not diminish the power of the Supreme Court under Article 32(2).
3. The Five Constitutional Writs
Both Articles authorize the same five writs, but their application context differs:
- Habeas Corpus — protects an individual’s liberty by requiring authorities to justify detention. The ADM Jabalpur case during the Emergency underlined that this right must survive even in extreme circumstances
- Mandamus — commands a public authority to perform a duty that it has neglected.
- Prohibition — prevents lower courts or tribunals from exceeding jurisdiction.
- Certiorari — quashes orders passed without jurisdiction or fairness.
- Quo Warranto — challenges a person holding a public office without legal authority.
4. Landmark Precedents and Emerging Trends
- In Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy under Article 21 and used Article 32 to issue binding directives.
- In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court expanded Article 21’s scope, declaring that “procedure … must be fair, just and reasonable” — strengthening Article 32’s import.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) affirmed that Article 226 can be invoked for social rights, such as rehabilitating bonded labor, marking a broader ambit than Article 32.
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) confirmed that High Courts’ writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, making it indispensable.
5. Comparative Table: Article 32 vs. Article 226
| Feature | Article 32 (Supreme Court) | Article 226 (High Courts) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Fundamental right to approach SC | Constitutional remedy (not an absolute right |
| Scope of Rights Enforced | Only fundamental rights | Fundamental + statutory/legal rights |
| Geographical Jurisdiction | Entire country | State-level jurisdiction; may extend if cause arises in state boundaries |
| Duty to Entertain | SC must hear if FR violation shown | HC has discretion and may reject petitions lacking urgency or alternate remedies |
| Suspension in Emergency | Can be suspended during national emergency | Cannot be suspended during emergency |
| Accessibility & Speed | Centralized but slower due to backlog | Faster relief due to proximity and efficiency |
6. Which Remedy Is More Effective for Practical Enforcement?
- Article 226 often wins on accessibility, speed, and wider scope—especially in common legal disputes or when statutory rights are at issue.
- Article 32 remains essential for high-stakes cases, constitutional questions of national importance, and for setting strong precedents. However, procedural delays and case load issues undercut its pragmatism in everyday citizen access.
Recent scholarship and legal trends as of early 2025 indicate that in terms of proactive enforcement, Article 226 is frequently seen as the more effective mechanism for the majority of litigants, while Article 32 continues to serve targeted, impactful constitutional intervention.
Conclusion
Article 32 and Article 226 are both vital pillars in India’s judicial architecture—complementary rather than competitive. Article 226 delivers broader reach and greater practicality for local redress, including statutory rights. Article 32, though narrower, is indispensable in safeguarding constitutional integrity and issuing landmark judgments. When used together, they ensure a robust, responsive, and rights-protective legal system.
References
- IJLLR, “The Distinction Between Article 32 and Article 226…” (IJLLR Journal)
- iPleaders, “Difference Between Article 32 and Article 226” (iPleaders)
- LawBhoomi, recent analysis of jurisdictional differences (LawBhoomi)
- https://indiankanoon.org/
