WRIT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT

This article is written by S M NAWAZ AHMAD pursuing B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) 4^th Year Student at University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University, Punjab during his internship at LeDroit India.

ABSTRACT

The writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and, to a lesser extent, the Supreme Court of India is pivotal to the working of the Indian Constitution and avails citizens of legal recourse against the actions of the state. The High Courts with the sanction of Article 226 and the Supreme Court with the permission of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution have the authority to issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto. These writs perform the role of strong official directives for the protection of the legal entitlements of individuals and to check the highhandedness of governmental agencies.

Article 32 of the Constitution of India is exclusively meant to protect the enforcement of the fundamental right and converts the Supreme Court into the protector of such rights, whereas Article 226 of the same charter extends the jurisdiction to the High Courts but for all the rights under the Constitution and other laws. These two tiers of jurisdiction provide for the system of checks and balances, and citizens are able to approach the judiciary through different courts.

Nevertheless, the exercise of the power of hammer through the writ jurisdiction is not without its difficulties. Questions like the extent of the writ jurisdiction, the degree of activism or otherwise of the superior courts, and the possibilities of divergent decisions emanating from the High Courts and the Supreme Court ought to be well thought out. In this paper, the author seeks to discuss the writ jurisdiction with a view of critically assessing it with a focus on both the High Courts and the Supreme Court, with special reference to the constitutional provisions as well as the judicial decisions relating to this particular dint of legal jurisdiction. It also delves into the problems and potential of writ petitions and throws light on the dynamic character of the writ jurisdiction in the Indian context.

Keywords: Writ jurisdiction, High Courts, Supreme Court, Indian Constitution, Article 226, Article 32, Habeas corpus, Mandamus, Legal entitlements, Judicial decisions.

INTRODUCTION

The High Courts’ and Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction is a significant part of the Indian judiciary as it provides protection and enforcement of citizens’ rights. Originally based on the English law, the writ system was also incorporated into the Indian Constitution to help enforce different legal rights and, at the same time, constitutional rights. Habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto are the writs of audience of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 32 of the Constitution expressly empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the protection of fundamental rights, while under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Courts have a wide ambit of jurisdiction; they can entertain violations of any legal rights, inclusive of the fundamental rights.

It has provided a twin system that guarantees legal redress to citizens both at the national and state level, thus strengthening the doctrine of checks and balances in the Indian legal regime. But the power of the High Court to issue writs is not without difficulties, such as whether the High Courts are over intervening in many matters as agents of judicial activism, the measure of the judicial power of the High Courts, confusion on the kind of decisions, the High Courts, and the Supreme Court. The present paper aims at discussing the constitutional foundations, the extent and importance of the writ jurisdiction, analysing the functions of this legal institution in the context of the Indian legal system, and its contribution to the protection of individuals’ rights and freedoms.

WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32: THE SUPREME COURT’S GUARDIAN ROLE

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is one of the cornerstones of the Indian legal system and has acclaimed the description of being the ‘heart and soul’ of the constitution, as said by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. This article affirms and enshrines the direct access to the Supreme Court for protection of fundamental rights of a person. It is a strong weapon in the arsenal of the judiciary to vindicate and safeguard these rights from any violation by the state or any of its arms. This jurisdiction under Article 32 is advisory or directing nature and can issue its orders or writs to enshrine all these rights, which make the apex court the ultimate custodian and defender of the Constitution and the liberties contained in the Constitution.

Habeas Corpus: This writ entails that someone who has been confined in a certain location without a legal reason be brought to the court by the authority that had confined the individual. When detention is held unlawful, the court makes the release order to guard against the state’s arbitrary conduct.

Mandamus: This writ instructs a governmental officer, a department, or a lower court to do something that the law requires it to do. The laws make the authorities perform their duties as required by the laws and discourage them from neglecting their duties to the public.

Prohibition: This writ is in existence in the legal system as a prerogative writ that is issued by a higher court to a lower court or a tribunal barring it from progressing in a case beyond its authority. But it plays an essential role in protecting the public from an over-opinionated judiciary that can take the law into its hands and make unlawful decisions.

Certiorari: This is a prerogative order given by a higher court to correct or nullify a decision made by the lower court or a tribunal where the latter has exceeded its jurisdiction or committed a legal mistake. He said it helps to rectify wrongdoing in judicial systems, thus upholding the law of the land.

Quo Warranto: This writ seeks to undo the election and right of an individual to exercise statutory authority of a public office, as well as the legal basis the occupant uses to wield the said authority. It safeguards against the appointment of holders of public offices by unqualified persons and increases responsibility.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE 32

It must therefore be emphasized that the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 is not absolute. (Exceptionally, the Court’s power to grant the writs may be exercised where other remedies are available, although this is not an infringed rule.) In addition, the Court will not consider the writ petitions that are without any merits or that are frivolous. However, the limitations have still been apparent through the years, but the coverage of Article 32 is wider. The Supreme Court has stepped in and given protection to socio-economic rights, environment, and minority and marginalized groups, showing a very dynamism and active role in affirmative interpretation of fundamental rights.[1]

WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226: THE EXPANSIVE ROLE OF HIGH COURTS

India’s Article 226 reveals the extent of power conferred upon the High Courts in that country in that it empowers High Courts to issue writs not only for the enforcement of this or that right but also for ‘any other purpose’ that may be considered desirable. The extensive territorial jurisdiction awarded to the High Courts has made the High Courts major players in the cases that involve rights, administrative laws, and virtually the overhauling of the legal structures in India in general.

TYPES OF WRITS UNDER ARTICLE 226

It is under this Article that the High Courts are as well granted the same writs as those under Article 32, which include the habeas corpus, the mandamus, the prohibition, the certiorari, and the quo warranto. However, unlike Article 32 under which the Supreme Court operates, this power enables the High Courts to employ any of these writs for a number of purposes. This involves the protection and enforcement of not only Charter rights, or what is referred to as “the civil liberties” but also non-charter rights and statutory rights. In this respect, the High Courts can deal with a more extensive range of problems in administrative decisions, statutory violations, and other legal matters that concern persons and juridical persons.[2]

COMPARATIVE SCOPE: ARTICLE 226 VS. ARTICLE 32

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AND EXPANDING JURISDICTION

The authorities assigned with jurisdiction of constitutional or writ of protection, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, have helped in the broadening of the writ jurisdiction through interpreting. Some of the historical judgments have contributed to the current form of the writ jurisdiction, making it a progressive instrument for accessing justice.

Judgments Regarding the Jurisdiction of the Writ:

• A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): This case also raised the issues of Habeas corpus in the preservation of individual freedom of the people. The Supreme Court stressed that the writ of habeas corpus is critical in making sure that none of the individuals are held unlawfully.[4]

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): In this case, the Supreme Court to some extent enlarged the meaning of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which contains the right to life and personal liberty, and it was declared that the procedure established by law should also be fair, just, and reasonable. It extended the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 in a very wide manner.[5]

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): In that case, the Court concluded that PIL could be employed to articulate the complaints of the disadvantaged. This case heralded a major shift in the enlargement of the writ jurisdiction, most especially within the purview of Article 32.[6]

• S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): The Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of the principle of judicial review and referred to the power of the courts in issues to do with the issuance of writs of protection to rights. This was also brought out clearly through the use of transparency and accountability in the appointment of the judiciary members.[7]

• Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997): This case is one of the well-known cases pertaining to judicial activism in which the apex court provided certain directions in order to ensure autonomy as well as integrity of the investigating organizations. It revealed the case with the element of a writ jurisdiction where the Court is able to deal with a repeated problem.[8]

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF WRIT JURISDICTION         

Enforcement Challenges

Writ jurisdiction is a significant defense of legal rights; however, the enforcement of writ orders can be challenging. However, for a writ that has been granted, particularly in complicated administrative contexts, compelling obedience entails cooperation between the judiciary and the executive arms of the government. Enforcement challenges often arise due to:

• Administrative Resistance: Practical difficulties or policy objections may be presented by authorities and officials in executing and obeying writ orders needed by the petitioner.
• Complexity of Orders: Writ orders, especially when they order specific actions from administrative bodies, are hence often problematic and difficult to execute.
• Resource Constraints: Disem power is a problem as there is limited resource, and there is always long bureaucracy in the political systems that slows down the implementation of the writs.

Case Studies of Enforcement Difficulties

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): While passing the orders, the Supreme Court ordered the release of bonded labourers, but the governments and state machinery resisted the implementation of the order, and the process had to be monitored for regular releases of such labourers.[9]
• Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997): Instructions for enhancing the functionality of investigative agencies come out as suiting the need, but the authorities had issues of delayed response, and those that did get to implement received considerable restraints from administrative practices.[10]

Backlog and Delay in Writ Petitions

The cases pending disposal in the Indian courts, which also include writ petitions, tell us the time factor of delivering justice is an issue. Large numbers of cases cause the time taken to process the cases, which in turn affects the efficiency of the writ system. Key issues include:

• Court Backlogs: Writ petitions filed in large numbers lengthen the time taken to deliver the petitioner’s remedy, hence the need to consider this factor.
• Judicial Delays: Pondering in determining and deciding writ petitions distorts the efficiency of the judicial relief.[11]

Measures to Address Delays

• Case Management Systems: Spooring of writ petitions and good tracking procedures, which help in enhancing the processing time of the writ petitions.
• Judicial Reforms: Engendering capacity by adding more judges at all levels of the judiciary and ensuring proper facilities and tools that will enable the judiciary to meet such a calendar.

CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS

Balancing Judicial Activism and Restraint

Judicial activism, while promoting the protection of rights, must be balanced with judicial restraint to respect the separation of powers.

• Analysis of Judicial Activism: The activism of the judiciary has had important positive consequences on the protection of rights but can enter into the thermodynamics of legislative and executive power.
• Criticisms and Limitations: The criticisms in relation to the judiciary’s participation in policy-making and shifting power equation occur only if the judiciary becomes overly active and intervenes in fields that should be handled by the executive.

Alternative Remedies and Judicial Discretion

Writ jurisdiction is not always the appropriate remedy for all grievances.

• When Writs May Not Be Granted: An application for the writs may be dismissed where other remedies are available or where the petition is unmerited.
• Role of Alternative Legal Remedies: Some of the common ones include appeals or statutory remedies, which can also influence whether a writ should be given.[12]

FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND REFORMS

Proposals for Reform

To enhance the effectiveness of writ jurisdiction, several reforms can be considered:

• Streamlining Procedures: Review of all the procedures concerning the writ petitions in order to eliminate unnecessary hitches in the process.
• Enhancing Coordination: Enhancing collaboration between the courts and the administrative bodies with a view of enhancing the implementation of writ orders.
• Expanding Legal Aid: Increasing the availability and accessibility of legal assistance and information to people who would like to initiate writ petitions and, in particular, the members of vulnerable populations.

Contemporary role in India

The role of writ jurisdiction in addressing emerging issues and challenges:

• Emerging Trends: The use of PIL that has been on the rise and expansion of the recognition and application of fundamental and socio-economic rights.
• Future Challenges: Solving new emerging questions concerning technology, environmental questions, and social justice within the context of legal writ jurisdiction.[13]

CONCLUSION

The writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court is one of the most important features of the constitution of India as far as individual rights against the state and state action are concerned. Although Article 32 allows the Supreme Court to act as the protector of a few fundamental rights, it grants more extensive control over violations of fundamental as well as other rights to high courts by bestowing upon them Article 226 jurisdiction. Judicial interpretation of the writ jurisdiction has grown with time and thus has become very useful in the delivery of justice. However, the concerns that are attached to the writ jurisdiction are burning issues such as judicial activism and judicial restraint, contradiction in the judgments, implementational aspects, etc.

High Courts’ and Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction will always play an indispensable role within the constitutional democracy India is shaping into as it attends to the rule of law while defending citizens’ rights over time. This two-tier system of review gives greater guarantees to the rights and, at the same time, contributes to the consolidation of the principles of justice and the rule of law in the administration of the state.

[1] iPleaders Blog, https://blog.ipleaders.in/writ-jurisdiction-of-supreme-court/ (Last Visited: 19^th August, 2024).

[2] Vajiram & Ravi, https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-daily-current-affairs/prelims-pointers/writ-jurisdiction-of-high-courts/ (Last Visited: 20^th August, 2024).

[3] International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, https://ijlmh.com/paper/comparative-analysis-of-article-32-and-article-226/ (Last Visited: 20^th August, 2024).

[4] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1857950/ (Last Visited: 20^th August, 2024).

[5] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/ (Last Visited: 21^st August, 2024).

[6] LawBhoomi, https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-bandhua-mukti-morcha-v-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors/ (Last Visited: 21^st August, 2024).

[7] legalfly.in, https://legalfly.in/case-summary-sp-gupta-v-union-of-india/ (Last Visited: 21^st August, 2024).

[8] ProBono India, https://probono-india.in/research-paper-detail.php?id=742 (Last Visited: 21^st August, 2024).

[9] LawDocs, https://www.lawdocs.in/listen-podcast/constitutional-case-law/bandhua-mukhti-morcha-v-uoi (Last Visited: 22^nd August, 2024).

[10] Supreme Court Observer, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/be-you-ever-so-high-a-brief-history-of-the-supreme-courts-call-for-impartial-agencies/#:~:text=In%20Vineet%20Narain%20v%20Union,of%20initiating%20and%20registering%20cases. (Last Visited: 22^nd August, 2024).

[11] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10361661/ (Last Visited: 22^nd August, 2024).

[12] Manupatra, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/EXISTENCE-OF-ALTERNATIVE-REMEDY-AS-AN-OBSTACLE-FOR-AVAILING-WRIT-JURISDICTION (Last Visited: 22^nd August, 2024).

[13] AdvocateKhoj, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/reformofjudicial/110.php?Title=Reform%20of%20Judicial%20Administration&STitle=Jurisdiction%20under%20Article%20226 (Last Visited: 22^nd August, 2024).