Which of the following statements about the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is correct?
- A.The Supreme Court may issue writs under Article 32 for the enforcement of any legal right
- B.The right under Article 32 can never be suspended
- C.Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right placed in Part III of the Constitution
- D.Only Parliament can authorise the Supreme Court to issue the five writs
Correct answer
C. Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right placed in Part III of the Constitution
Explanation
The correct answer is C. Article 32 appears in Part III and is a Fundamental Right in its own right, which is why a petition under it cannot be refused once a breach of another Fundamental Right is established. Option A is wrong because the jurisdiction under Article 32 is confined to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights; an ordinary legal right is pursued in a High Court under Article 226 or in a civil court. Option B is wrong because Article 359 allows the President, during the operation of a National Emergency, to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of the rights mentioned in the order. Option D is wrong because the power to issue the writs is conferred directly by Article 32(2); what Article 32(3) adds is that Parliament may empower some other court to issue them, a power not yet exercised.
Read the full article: Writs and Judicial Review: Articles 32, 226 and PYQs
Practice Questions
View allWhich writs in the Indian Constitution mean To be informed or To be certified?
- A.Prohibition
- B.Quo-Warranto
- C.Certiorari
- D.Habeas Corpus
Show answer
Correct answer: C. Certiorari
Explanation
The correct answer is C, Certiorari. Certiorari is Latin for to be certified or to be informed, and the writ does exactly that: a higher court calls up the record of a case from a lower court or tribunal, either to transfer the matter to itself or to quash an order already passed because of excess of jurisdiction, lack of jurisdiction or an error of law. It is a curative writ, issued after the order exists. Option A is wrong because prohibition means to forbid; it is preventive and stops a subordinate court while the proceeding is still pending. Option B is wrong because quo warranto means by what authority and questions a person's title to a public office. Option D is wrong because habeas corpus means to have the body of, and is used to produce a detained person before the court so that the legality of the detention can be tested.
Power of issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus lies with
- A.Supreme Court
- B.High Courts
- C.District and Session Court
- D.Both (A) and (B)
Show answer
Correct answer: D. Both (A) and (B)
Explanation
The correct answer is D, Both (A) and (B). Habeas corpus can be issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32, where it is a remedy for the breach of the Fundamental Right to personal liberty, and by every High Court under Article 226, which covers Fundamental Rights and any other purpose as well. Options A and B are each incomplete for that reason: naming only one of the two courts leaves out a jurisdiction the Constitution expressly grants. Option C is wrong because a district and sessions court has no writ jurisdiction at all; writs are a constitutional power given only to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, and Article 32(3) allows Parliament to extend the power to another court, which it has never done. Remember also that habeas corpus is the one writ that can be issued against a private person as well as against the state.
Which article of the Constitution of India is known as the right to constitutional remedies?
- A.Article 19
- B.Article 32
- C.Article 226
- D.Article 14
Show answer
Correct answer: B. Article 32
Explanation
The correct answer is B, Article 32. Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and empowers the Court to issue directions, orders and writs for that purpose, which is why it is titled the right to constitutional remedies and why Dr B. R. Ambedkar described it as the very soul of the Constitution. Option A is wrong because Article 19 lists the six freedoms, such as speech and expression and movement, and is a substantive right rather than a remedy. Option C is wrong because Article 226 is the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts; it is a constitutional power of those courts but it is not itself a Fundamental Right and it lies outside Part III. Option D is wrong because Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, again a substantive right.
Which one of the following writs is issued only against judicial or quasi-judicial authorities and never against an administrative or legislative body?
- A.Mandamus
- B.Prohibition
- C.Habeas corpus
- D.Quo warranto
Show answer
Correct answer: B. Prohibition
Explanation
The correct answer is B, Prohibition. Prohibition means to forbid. It is issued by a superior court to a lower court or a tribunal to stop it from continuing with a proceeding that lies beyond its jurisdiction, so by its nature it can be directed only at bodies exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, never at an administrative or a legislative body. Option A is wrong because mandamus is issued precisely to administrative authorities and public officials to compel the performance of a public duty, although not to a private person. Option C is wrong because habeas corpus is directed at whoever holds a person in detention, which may be a public authority or even a private individual. Option D is wrong because quo warranto is directed at a person occupying a public office. Remember the pair: prohibition is preventive and certiorari is curative.
Against which of the following can the writ of mandamus NOT be issued?
- A.A municipal corporation
- B.An inferior court
- C.The President of India
- D.A statutory tribunal
Show answer
Correct answer: C. The President of India
Explanation
The correct answer is C, the President of India. Mandamus means we command, and it is issued to a public body or official to perform a public duty that it has refused to perform. The courts have, however, placed the President of India and the Governors of States outside its reach, along with the Chief Justice of a High Court acting in a judicial capacity, private individuals and bodies, purely discretionary duties, and obligations arising from an ordinary contract. Option A is wrong because a municipal corporation is a public authority with statutory duties and is a classic respondent to mandamus. Option B is wrong because an inferior court can be commanded to exercise a jurisdiction it has wrongly declined. Option D is wrong because a statutory tribunal is a public authority and, after L. Chandra Kumar in 1997, remains fully subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226.