Jul 5, 2025
15
mins read
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution(or Art 32 of the Indian Constitution) is often called the “heart and soul” of the Constitution. It guarantees every citizen the right to constitutional remedies, empowering them to approach the Supreme Court directly when any of their Fundamental Rights are violated. Under Article 32(2), the Supreme Court can issue any of the five writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari) to enforce rights.. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously noted, Article 32 makes Fundamental Rights “real” by providing an enforceable remedy, and he hailed it as the Constitution’s “heart and soul”. In short, Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is the cornerstone of India’s justice system – it underpins judicial review and makes the judiciary the guarantor of individual liberties.
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution – The “Heart and Soul”
Direct Access to Justice: Grants every individual the right to approach the Supreme Court directly when Fundamental Rights are violated.
Constitutional Remedies: Empowers the Supreme Court to issue five writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto — to enforce Fundamental Rights.
Guardianship Role: Makes the Supreme Court the “defender and guarantor” of Fundamental Rights, ensuring that they are not mere paper promises.
Unassailable Right: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the “heart and soul of the Constitution”, highlighting its essential role in enforcing justice for citizens
Non‑suspensible Safeguard: The right it guarantees can be suspended only during a declared national emergency under Article 359, making it a robust and nearly inviolable protector of liberty.
The Constitution empowers the Supreme Court (and High Courts under Article 226) to issue five types of writs as remedies for rights violations. Each writ serves a distinct purpose:
1. Habeas Corpus (“To have the body of”)
Purpose: It is an order issued by the court to a person who has detained another person to produce the body of the latter before it. The court then examines the cause and legality of detention. It would set the detained person free if the detention was found to be illegal. Thus, this writ is the bulwark of individual liberty against arbitrary detention.
Can be issued against: This writ can be issued against both public authorities and private individuals
Cannot be issued against:
detention is lawful,
the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court,
detention is by a competent court,
detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court.
2. Mandamus (“We command”)
Purpose: Directs a public authority or court to perform a statutory or legal duty they have failed to execute.
Can be issued against: public official, a public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal, or the government for the same purpose
Cannot be issued against:
Private individuals or that do not have public duty
Discretionary decisions, non-statutory functions, or contractual obligations
President, Governors, or Chief Justice of a High Court in judicial capacity.
3. Prohibition (“To forbid”)
Purpose: It is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping a jurisdiction that it does not possess or violating natural justice. Thus, while the writ of ‘Mandamus’ directs activity, the writ of ‘Prohibition’ directs inactivity.
Cannot be issued against: Administrative authorities, legislative bodies, private individuals or entities.
4. Certiorari (“To be certified”)
Purpose: It is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal either to transfer a case pending with the latter to itself or to squash the order of the latter in a case. This writ is issued on the grounds of excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction or error of law
Can be issued against: Judicial, quasi-judicial, and (post‑1991) administrative authorities.
Cannot be issued against: Legislative bodies or private individuals/entities.
Thus, while the writ of ‘Prohibition’ is only preventive, the writ of ‘Certiorari’ is both preventive as well as curative.
5. Quo Warranto (“By what authority”)
Purpose: Challenges a person’s legal right to hold a public office; calls for proof of entitlement. Hence, it prevents illegal usurpation of public office by a person.
Unlike the other writs, this can be sought by any interested person and not necessarily by the aggrieved person.
Can be issued against: Persons holding statutory or constitutional public offices. Any citizen can file the petition.
Cannot be issued against: Ministerial or private offices.
Each writ targets a specific kind of legal wrong, and together they form a comprehensive toolkit for protecting rights. For example, habeas corpus safeguards individual freedom; mandamus compels public duty; prohibitory and certiorari control judicial overreach; and quo warranto ensures only qualified individuals hold public office.
Table of content
The writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is vital for upholding fundamental rights and the rule of law. Key significance includes:
Protection of Fundamental Rights: Writs allow individuals a swift and effective remedy whenever a right in Part III is infringed. Citizens can move the Supreme Court for redress, ensuring rights are not illusory. For example, habeas corpus directly frees unlawfully detained persons, while mandamus enforces rights by compelling official action.
Judicial Review: Article 32 enshrines judicial review by enabling courts to examine and invalidate unconstitutional laws or actions. The ability to issue writs makes it possible for the judiciary to strike down executive or legislative acts that violate Fundamental Rights. This ensures that all branches of government remain within the bounds set by the Constitution.
To Ensure Checks and Balances: Writs introduce an internal system of checks within the judiciary itself. Higher courts can review and overturn orders of lower courts or tribunals through writs like prohibition and certiorari. This maintains consistency and accountability in the judicial process. Likewise, writs allow the judiciary to oversee administrative bodies, preventing any one branch from arbitrary action.
To Prevent the Abuse of Power: Writs such as mandamus, prohibition and certiorari serve as preventive checks against illegal or arbitrary government action. They require public officials and courts to act within the law and follow fair procedures, deterring misuse of authority. For instance, a writ of mandamus can compel an official to fulfill a statutory duty, curbing executive neglect.
Administrative Accountability: Writs hold public authorities accountable by correcting legal errors. If a court or official exceeds its jurisdiction or makes an error of law, the higher court can issue an appropriate writ to rectify the situation. This promotes integrity and transparency in administration.
Promotion of Justice and Equity: By providing a direct remedy for rights violations, writs advance justice and equality. They ensure timely relief against oppression or illegality and reinforce the principle that no one is above the law. The availability of these remedies makes the Constitution truly meaningful, guaranteeing that all citizens enjoy equal protection under law.
Although Article 32 gives the Supreme Court writ powers, Article 226 similarly empowers all High Courts. However, there are key differences in how writ jurisdiction operates at the Supreme Court and High Court levels (see table below). In general, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 is nationwide and focused on Fundamental Rights, while High Courts’ jurisdiction under Article 226 is broader in scope and more territorial.
Parameter | Supreme Court (Art. 32) | High Courts (Art. 226) |
Scope of Writs | Can issue writs only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. | Can issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for enforcement of any other legal right. |
Territorial Jurisdiction | Can issue writs against any person or authority throughout the territory of India. | Can issue writs against persons or authorities within the state and, in some cases, outside if the cause arises within the state. |
Remedy | Article 32 is itself a fundamental right; hence the Supreme Court generally cannot refuse to entertain a writ petition under Article 32. | Article 226 is a constitutional provision, making High Court relief discretionary; a High Court may refuse relief if suitable alternative remedy exists. |
Right to Move the Supreme Court (Clause 1)
Guarantees every citizen the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Part III.
Establishes the right to constitutional remedies as itself a Fundamental Right.
Writ Powers of the Supreme Court (Clause 2)
Vests the Supreme Court with authority to issue writs under Article 32 of Indian Constitution—habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto—to enforce Fundamental Rights.
Empowers the Court to craft any order or direction necessary for effective relief.
Empowerment of Other Courts (Clause 3)
Authorizes Parliament to extend writ jurisdiction beyond the Supreme Court (excluding High Courts, already empowered by Article 226).
In practice, only High Courts exercise these powers, making the Supreme Court the primary defender and guarantor of Fundamental Rights.
Non‑suspendability (Clause 4)
Declares that the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided” by the Constitution.
Suspension is possible only during a national emergency under Article 359, preserving Article 32 as a near‑inviolable safeguard.
1. Makes Fundamental Rights Enforceable
Part III (Articles 12–35) guarantees Fundamental Rights, but Article 32 ensures these are real and enforceable. Without it, rights remain aspirational.
It elevates the right to constitutional remedies itself to a Fundamental Right—so denial of this remedy can also be challenged under Article 32.
2. Supreme Court as the Guarantor
Article 32 establishes the Supreme Court as the defender and guarantor of Fundamental Rights, able to issue writs under Article 32 (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto) to enforce rights.
This ensures citizens have direct access to the highest court—no lower court route is needed. The Court has emphasized Article 32’s indispensable role in protecting rights .
3. Concrete vs Aspirational Rights
The Supreme Court describes Article 32 as the mechanism that makes Fundamental Rights “real”—otherwise, they are mere declarations lacking teeth.
4. Part of the Constitution’s Basic Structure
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), Article 32 was held to be an unalterable part of the Constitution’s basic structure—Parliament cannot amend it away
The Court held that while Parliament can amend anything within the broad objectives of the Constitution, it cannot destroy the Constitution’s identity—and Article 32 lies at its core.
5. Enhanced Post-Emergency Protection
Although Article 32 can be suspended during an Emergency under Article 359, subsequent reforms and rulings (including the 44th Amendment) made key rights like life and personal liberty (Article 21) non-suspendable.
Judicial review during emergencies was validated in cases like Kehar Singh v. Union of India—ensuring that, even then, essential rights and judicial oversight remain intact.
Several landmark cases have shaped the interpretation and strength of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Court held that the basic structure doctrine applies to all amendments. It explicitly recognized Article 32 as part of the basic structure, meaning Parliament cannot annul the right to constitutional remedies. This entrenched Article 32 at the core of the Constitution.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Reaffirmed that Fundamental Rights and judicial review are basic features. The Court invalidated laws that unduly curtailed Article 32 and ensured that no amendments could destroy the essence of the right to move the Court.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that both Articles 32 and 226 are “twin pillars” of the Constitution’s basic structure. It held that High Court and Supreme Court writ jurisdictions are integral and cannot be erased.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Although focused on personal liberty (Article 21), the Court expanded the scope of fundamental rights, indirectly strengthening Article 32. It held that “law” in Article 21 must be “just, fair and reasonable,” underscoring the Court’s power to examine any rights-violation.
K. Chandra Singh v. Union of India (2015): For example, in Abdul Rehman Antulay case (1987) and later decisions, the Court has underscored the non-derogable nature of certain rights (like right to life) even in emergencies. (Notably, Article 32 was restored after the Emergency when the 44th Amendment ensured personal liberty could not be suspended).
These judgments collectively emphasize that Art 32 of the Indian Constitution is a safeguard against tyranny. They highlight that citizens’ access to the courts is fundamental, and that the Supreme Court is duty-bound to enforce rights.
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution – Supreme Guardian of Rights
Empowers every individual to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution—making remedy itself a right
Authorizes five writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto, covering detention, duty enforcement, jurisdiction checks, order reviews, and public office legitimacy
Recognised as part of the basic structure of the Constitution; it cannot be suspended, even during emergencies
Acts as a vital constitutional safeguard, ensuring judicial review, accountability, and immediate remedy for rights violations—reinforcing India’s democratic and rule-of-law ethos
1. Constitutional Grounds for Suspension
Only during a national emergency: Article 32 can be suspended exclusively under Article 359, which empowers the President to suspend the right to move any court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, including Article 32, during a proclaimed Emergency.
Article 32(4) itself affirms: the right “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided” in the Constitution .
2. Historical Application: 1975–77 Emergency
During the Emergency, the Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) held that the right to approach courts for enforcement under Article 32 could indeed be suspended—effectively allowing detention without judicial remedy.
The 38th Amendment (1975) further insulated Emergency proclamations from judicial review.
3. Post-Emergency Safeguards
The 44th Amendment (1978) clarified that rights under Articles 20 and 21 (including the right to life and personal liberty) cannot be suspended, even during Emergency.
The judiciary, in cases like Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989), reaffirmed that Article 32 is part of the Constitution’s basic structure—and cannot be nullified .
4. Contemporary Position: Judicial Review Remains
Even when Article 32 enforcement is suspended, courts retain the power to review Emergency-related executive actions—especially violations of life and liberty protected under Article 21.
Thus, the Supreme Court continues to act as the guardian of fundamental rights during emergencies.
India’s writ system is based on the English common law tradition, but other countries handle judicial remedies somewhat differently:
Country | Writs/Remedies |
India | Five writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto) explicitly provided by Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. |
England | Prerogative writs abolished; powers now exercised through judicial review and orders (quashing, prohibiting, mandatory) under Civil Procedure Rules. |
USA | No direct equivalent of Article 32. Writs like mandamus exist but are governed by statute; the Supreme Court uses certiorari to hear appeals. |
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution vests the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction to enforce all Fundamental Rights, making it the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Court held that writ jurisdictions under Articles 32 and 226 form part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be abolished. It also clarified that, where a High Court remedy under Article 226 exists, petitioners should generally approach that forum first—reflecting the concurrent but non-exclusive nature of Article 32.
Under Article 226, High Courts act as state-level constitutional courts empowered to issue all five writs for Fundamental Rights and other legal rights, within their territorial limits. Their jurisdiction is discretionary (they may refuse relief if an adequate alternative remedy exists), making them the more accessible first recourse for most citizens. Together, Articles 32 and 226 create a two-tier safeguard: High Courts provide regional remedies, and the Supreme Court serves as the final guarantor of fundamental freedoms.
Aspect | Article 32 (Supreme Court) | Article 226 (High Courts) |
Who can issue? | Supreme Court of India | High Courts of each state |
Jurisdiction | Original (nationwide) | Original (within the state, plus some extra-territorial cases) |
Scope | Only Fundamental Rights (Part III) | Fundamental Rights and ordinary legal rights |
Nature of Power | Fundamental Right (Article 32 itself is a FR) | Constitutional power (not in Part III) |
Remedial Scope | Limited to enforcement of rights | Broader (can address administrative and legal wrongs beyond FR) |
Hierarchy | Supreme Court’s orders prevail over all courts | Subordinate to Supreme Court jurisdiction (decisions can be appealed or reviewed) |
Q. What is Article 32 of the Indian Constitution?
A. Article 32 is a Fundamental Right known as the right to constitutional remedies. It empowers citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court via writs under Article 32 of Indian Constitution to enforce their Fundamental Rights in Part III.
Q. Why is Article 32 called the “heart and soul” of the Constitution?
A. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously stated that Article 32 is the Constitution’s “heart and soul”, because without it Fundamental Rights would be meaningless—it ensures citizens can seek enforcement through the Supreme Court.
Q. What are the writs under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution?
A. The Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 32 includes five remedies:
Habeas corpus – protects against illegal detention
Mandamus – compels duty performance
Prohibition – blocks lower court overreach
Certiorari – quashes excess-jurisdiction decisions
Q. How is Article 32 different from Article 226?
A. Key distinctions:
Article 32: Fundamental Right; Supreme Court can issue writs only for Fundamental Rights, with nationwide jurisdiction and mandatory jurisdiction
Article 226: Constitutional provision (not FR); High Courts can issue writs for Fundamental and legal rights, have territorial discretion, and may refuse relief
Q. Who can file a writ petition under Article 32?
A. Any person whose Fundamental Rights are violated can file directly—this includes individuals, corporations, or those filing on behalf of others via public interest litigation (PIL). Courts maintain a liberal approach to standing.
Q. Can Article 32 of the Indian Constitution be suspended?
A. Article 32 cannot be suspended except during a national emergency under Article 359. Even then, certain rights like the right to life (Article 21) remain protected.
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is perhaps the most powerful guarantee of civil liberties in India. By granting every individual a fundamental right to approach the Supreme Court against rights violations, it places judicial remedy at the core of the constitutional framework. The five writs under Article 32 – habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto – cover the full range of governmental and judicial overreach, ensuring that no authority can trample on Fundamental Rights with impunity. The Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored the inviolability of Article 32, holding it to be part of the Constitution’s basic structure. In this way, Article 32 acts as a bulwark of justice, equality and accountability: it empowers citizens to enforce their rights and makes the courts the ultimate guardians of democracy. Any person whose liberties are threatened can invoke Article 32 to seek redress, making it a cornerstone of India’s commitment to the rule of law and a just society.
Internal Linking Suggestions
How to Begin Your UPSC Preparation : The Ultimate Guide For Beginners
UPSC Previous Year Question Papers with Answers PDF - Prelims & Mains (2014-2024)
How to Prepare Current Affairs for UPSC Exam: A Comprehensive Guide
51st G7 Summit 2025 – Countries, Key Issues, India’s Role & UPSC
External Linking Suggestions
UPSC Official Website – Syllabus & Notification: https://upsc.gov.in/
Press Information Bureau – Government Announcements: https://pib.gov.in/
NCERT Official Website – Standard Books for UPSC: https://ncert.nic.in
