Comparative Study of Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India: Original Jurisdiction

Comparative Study of Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India: Original Jurisdiction

INTRODUCTION:-

In modern democratic countries, the administrative authorities are vested with vast discretionary powers. The exercise of those power often becomes subjective in the absence of specific guidelines etc. Hence the need for a control of the discretionary power is essential to ensure that ‘rule of law’ exist in all governmental actions. The judicial review of administration action in the form of writ jurisdiction is to ensure that the decisions taken by the authorities are legal, rational, proper, fair and reasonable.

Article 32 and 226 of the Indian constitution has designed for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and for a judicial review of administrative actions, in the form of writs. It is a constitutional remedy available to a person to bring his complaint or grievance against any administration action to the notice of the court. Safeguard of fundamental rights and assurance of natural justice are the most important components of writ jurisdiction.

Writ jurisdiction is exercised by the Supreme Court by article 32 and High Court by article 226. A writ petition can be filed in the Supreme Court (Article 32) of India or in the High Court (Article 226) when any of our fundamental rights are violated. The jurisdiction with the High Courts (Article 226) with regards to a writ petition is wider and extends to constitutional rights too.

There are five major types of writs viz. Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari. Each of them has different meaning and different implications

STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS:-                                                                                                                                                                 Lack of clarity in the distinction between jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Court. The area in which High court have jurisdiction to issue a writ overlaps with that of Supreme Court jurisdiction.

HYPOTHESIS:-                                                                                                                                                                       It is assumed that since Supreme Court has jurisdiction only in case of violation of fundamental rights, while High Court has widen jurisdiction as compare to Supreme Court.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:-                                                                                                                            

• To analyze the jurisdiction of Supreme court and High court under article 32 and article 226 respectively.
• To study five writs briefly and amplitude of issuance by the Supreme court and High court.
• In order to find the areas where, the jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Court overlaps with each other.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:-                                                                                                                 Doctrinal method has been used throughout the study whereby law reports, articles, books, and case laws are as sources.