Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

Article 32 is one of the fundamental rights listed in the Constitution that each citizen is entitled to. Article 32 deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution. It states that the Supreme Court “shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”. The right guaranteed by this Article “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution”.

The article is included in Part III of the Constitution with other fundamental rights including Equality, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Life and Personal Liberty, and Freedom of Religion. Only if any of these fundamental rights are violated can a person can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.

During the Constituent Assembly debates in December 1948, a discussion on this fundamental right (in the draft, it is referred to as Article 25), Dr B R Ambedkar had said, “If I was asked to name any particular Article in this Constitution as the most important — an Article without which this Constitution would be a nullity — I could not refer to any other Article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it…” He said the rights invested with the Supreme Court through this Article could not be taken away unless the Constitution itself is amended and hence it was “one of the greatest safeguards that can be provided for the safety and security of the individual”.

The Supreme Court of India has been entrusted in upholding this article, Article 32 or heart as the soul of the Constitution of India as rightly addressed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who has been a pioneer in the speculations and creation of our Constitution. There are definitely some limitations to it too, first of all, it is to be kept in mind that no fundamental right is absolute because even the right to life is subjected to the point that the offender, convicted criminals have to undergo the death penalty in pursuance of the commission of some heinous crimes. Any person, when unduly deprived of their fundamental rights can approach the Supreme Court, without following a lengthy process.

Question:

B is the proprietor of the land. He straightforwardly moves toward the high court after his property was attached by the excise department, then, at that point?

Option: 1

The writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court


Option: 2

The writ petition would not be maintainable


Option: 3

The Writ Petition would be maintainable at the discretion of the court


Option: 4

The writ petition would just be maintainable in the High Court


Answers (1)

best_answer

The Supreme Court in comparative conditions in the case of Radha Krishna Industries v. Province of Himachal Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 334 has held that although the Court can acknowledge the Writ Petition, courts should refrain from engaging in such petitions if a powerful and elective cure is accessible to the aggrieved individual. Thus (3) is the correct answer.

 

Posted by

Suraj Bhandari

View full answer