Introduction

The Right to Constitutional Remedies is enshrined in Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, regarded as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, as described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. This right empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court or High Courts for enforcement of their fundamental rights, making it the cornerstone of judicial review and the protection of individual liberties. This article explores the significance of this right, the forms of remedies available, and examines key case laws that have shaped its interpretation.

Historical Context

The framers of the Indian Constitution envisaged a framework where the rule of law would ensure that no individual’s rights were violated by the state. The inclusion of the Right to Constitutional Remedies ensures the supremacy of the Constitution by giving citizens the power to challenge laws or executive actions that infringe upon their fundamental rights. This right is directly linked to judicial review, which allows courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.

Scope of Article 32

Article 32(1) grants individuals the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution. Article 32(2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders, including writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the enforcement of rights.

• Habeas Corpus: Ensures personal liberty by protecting against unlawful detention.
• Mandamus: Directs a public authority to perform its duty.
• Prohibition: Prevents lower courts from exceeding their jurisdiction.
• Quo Warranto: Challenges the legality of a public office holder.
• Certiorari: Corrects jurisdictional errors by lower courts.

Judicial Review and Article 32

The Supreme Court, through Article 32, has developed a robust framework of judicial review, ensuring that any violation of fundamental rights can be remedied. This principle allows the judiciary to act as the guardian of the Constitution.

Case Laws Defining the Right to Constitutional Remedies

A. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

This case, one of the earliest interpretations of Article 32, tested the limits of Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) and the powers of judicial review. Gopalan, detained under the Preventive Detention Act, challenged his detention under Article 32, arguing it violated his right to life. The Supreme Court ruled against him, holding that personal liberty could be limited by a “procedure established by law.” This decision was later overturned in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which expanded the scope of Article 21.

B. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

A landmark case that reaffirmed the importance of judicial review. The petitioner challenged the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, claiming they infringed upon the right to property. The Supreme Court, using Article 32, ruled that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered, thus preserving the essence of fundamental rights and the Right to Constitutional Remedies.

C. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

This case broadened the scope of the right to personal liberty under Article 21. The petitioner, Maneka Gandhi, challenged the impounding of her passport by the government. The court, through Article 32, held that any law depriving a person of their personal liberty must be “just, fair, and reasonable” and that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without due process.

D. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1996)

In this case, the Supreme Court used Article 32 to address the Hawala scandal. It ruled that citizens could approach the court under Article 32 when governmental agencies failed to investigate matters that directly affected the public interest. The judgment ensured the enforcement of the Right to Information and public accountability.

E. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

The Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, created to protect certain laws from judicial review, was challenged in this case. The Supreme Court, through its powers under Article 32, held that laws included in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment would be subject to judicial review if they violate fundamental rights. This reaffirmed the power of the judiciary to protect the basic structure of the Constitution.

F. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

This case dealt with the controversial Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized sending offensive messages online. The petitioners argued that the provision violated their right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court, using Article 32, struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, holding it vague and disproportionate in restricting free speech.

5. Remedies Under Article 226 (High Courts)

While Article 32 provides access to the Supreme Court, Article 226 extends a similar remedy through High Courts. High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as for any other purpose, offering a broader scope of intervention.

Evolution and Expansion of Article 32

The interpretation of Article 32 has evolved significantly over time. Initially, it was confined to the protection of fundamental rights. However, with the introduction of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), the court widened the scope of Article 32, allowing citizens to file petitions on behalf of others whose rights are being infringed. This proactive approach has led to significant social justice reforms, particularly in environmental law, human rights, and corruption cases.

PILs and Social Justice

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), a PIL was filed for the enforcement of the rights of bonded laborers. The Supreme Court, under Article 32, recognized the need for an expanded view of the right to life, which includes the right to live with dignity.

Restrictions and Limitations

Though Article 32 is a guaranteed right, the courts have emphasized that it cannot be misused. Frivolous petitions or those that do not demonstrate a violation of fundamental rights may be dismissed, and in some cases, penalties may be imposed on petitioners for wasting judicial time.

In Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961), the Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata applies to Article 32. This means that if a petition has already been decided by a High Court under Article 226, a fresh petition on the same issue cannot be filed in the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The Right to Constitutional Remedies is the bedrock of the Indian legal system’s commitment to the protection of fundamental rights. Through the power of judicial review, it allows citizens to challenge unconstitutional actions, safeguarding democracy and the rule of law. The evolving jurisprudence around Article 32 reflects the dynamic nature of the Indian Constitution and the judiciary’s role as its guardian.

The doctrine of basic structure, the expansion of the right to life, and the inclusion of PILs illustrate the court’s progressive stance in ensuring that this fundamental right adapts to the changing needs of society. As the Constitution continues to evolve, the Right to Constitutional Remedies will remain a powerful tool for the protection of individual freedoms and justice.

---