Which of the following statements is/are correct ?, 1. In India the constitutional remedy under Article 32 is available only in case of fundamental rights, not in the case of rights which follow from some other provision in the Constitution. . 2. Both the Supreme Court and High Courts can issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto only for the purpose of enforcement of . fundamental rights. Select the correct answer using the code given below :

1. Nature and Justiciability of Part III Rights (basic)

To understand the Indian Constitution, one must first appreciate the bedrock of individual liberty: Part III. These rights are often described as the 'Magna Carta' of India because they are justiciable. In simple terms, 'justiciability' means that these rights are not mere pious wishes or moral guides; they are legally enforceable. If the State (the executive or legislature) oversteps its bounds and violates these rights, a citizen has the power to approach the courts for protection. This makes them a critical check against the 'tyranny of the executive' and 'arbitrary laws of the legislature' Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30. However, a common point of confusion is the difference between Fundamental Rights and other legal or constitutional rights. While many rights exist outside Part III (such as the right to vote under Article 326), they do not share the same procedural privilege. For a Fundamental Right, an aggrieved person can move the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.96. For other rights, you generally follow the hierarchy of courts (lower court to higher court) unless you approach a High Court under its broader powers. It is also vital to remember that these rights are not absolute. The Constitution balances individual liberty with social control by allowing 'reasonable restrictions' (like public order or national security). Furthermore, they are not sacrosanct or permanent; the Parliament can curtail or even repeal them through a Constitutional Amendment, provided it doesn't damage the basic structure of the Constitution Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30.

Feature	Fundamental Rights (Part III)	Other Constitutional Rights
Source	Specifically Articles 12 to 35.	Articles outside Part III (e.g., Art 300-A).
Direct SC Access	Available via Article 32 (a FR itself).	Not available; must use other legal routes.
Nature	Justiciable and legally enforceable.	Equally justiciable, but procedural paths differ.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.96

2. Article 32: The Heart and Soul of the Constitution (basic)

Imagine building a magnificent palace (the Constitution) and filling it with treasures (Fundamental Rights). Without a security system and a legal guarantee to reclaim those treasures if stolen, the palace is just an empty shell. This is why Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously described Article 32 as the "very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it". He argued that without this specific article, the entire Constitution would be a "nullity" because a right without a remedy is no right at all Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 8, p.97.

The most unique feature of Article 32 is that the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is, in itself, a Fundamental Right included in Part III. This means the Supreme Court cannot refuse to entertain a petition for the protection of these rights. However, there is a crucial limitation to remember: the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32 is restricted only to Fundamental Rights. It cannot be invoked to protect ordinary legal rights, statutory rights, or other constitutional rights outside of Part III Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Chapter 8, p.152.

While the Supreme Court is the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights, it shares this "writ jurisdiction" with the High Courts. Interestingly, the High Courts actually have a wider scope in this specific area than the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court is a "specialist" for Fundamental Rights, the High Courts are "generalists" who can step in for various legal grievances.

Feature	Supreme Court (Article 32)	High Courts (Article 226)
Scope	Only for Fundamental Rights.	For Fundamental Rights AND "any other purpose" (legal rights).
Nature	It is a Fundamental Right to approach the SC.	It is a discretionary power of the HC.
Jurisdiction	Original but not exclusive (concurrent with HC).	Original and wider in reach regarding subject matter.

Under Article 32, the violation of a Fundamental Right is the sine qua non (an essential condition) for the exercise of the court's power Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 8, p.98. If your right to vote (a constitutional right but not a Fundamental Right) is violated, you cannot go to the Supreme Court under Article 32, but you could approach a High Court under Article 226.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights, p.97-98; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.152

3. Understanding the Five Types of Writs (intermediate)

To understand the Five Types of Writs, we must first look at their roots. These are known as 'prerogative writs' because, in English law, they were the exclusive privilege of the King (the 'fountain of justice') to ensure justice was done when ordinary law failed. In India, our Constitution empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue these extraordinary remedies to protect your liberties Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 8, p. 98. Think of them as surgical tools: each one is designed for a very specific legal 'injury.' While both the Supreme Court (Art 32) and High Courts (Art 226) can issue these writs, there is a fundamental difference in their reach. The Supreme Court's power is narrower in scope because it can only issue writs to enforce Fundamental Rights. In contrast, the High Courts have a wider jurisdiction; they can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for 'any other purpose,' such as the enforcement of ordinary legal rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 8, p. 99. However, the Supreme Court's power is mandatory because Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, whereas the High Court's power under Article 226 is discretionary.

Here is a breakdown of the five writs and what they actually do:

Writ Name	Literal Meaning	Purpose
Habeas Corpus	'To have the body'	To protect personal liberty against unlawful detention by the state or private individuals.
Mandamus	'We command'	To order a public official or body to perform a legal duty they have failed to do.
Prohibition	'To forbid'	Issued by a higher court to a lower court to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction.
Certiorari	'To be certified'	Issued to a lower court to transfer a case or quash an order already passed (curative).
Quo-Warranto	'By what authority'	To enquire into the legality of a person's claim to a public office Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Part III, p. 159.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights, p.98-99; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.153-159

4. Fundamental Rights vs. Other Constitutional/Legal Rights (intermediate)

To truly master the Indian Constitution, one must understand that not all rights are created equal. While all rights provide a shield for the citizen, Fundamental Rights (FRs) enjoy a special status. As highlighted in Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, p.29, ordinary legal rights are protected by ordinary law, but FRs are protected and guaranteed by the Constitution itself. This means that while an ordinary right can be changed by the legislature through a simple law, a Fundamental Right can generally only be altered by a Constitutional Amendment. This 'fundamental' nature is why Part III is often called the Magna Carta of India Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 8, p.74.
Beyond Part III, the Constitution contains other rights, such as the Right to Property (Article 300-A) or the freedom of trade and commerce (Article 301). These are constitutional rights—they are valid and enforceable, but they are not 'fundamental' Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 8, p.106. The most critical distinction lies in the remedy. If your FR is violated, you have the unique right to move the Supreme Court directly under Article 32. However, if a non-fundamental constitutional right is violated, you cannot approach the Supreme Court under Article 32, as that provision is strictly reserved for the enforcement of Part III rights Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, p.96.
Interestingly, the High Courts possess a wider reach in this specific area than the Supreme Court. Under Article 226, a High Court can issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but also for 'any other purpose'. This means a High Court can protect your ordinary legal rights or other constitutional rights, whereas the Supreme Court's power under Article 32 is 'narrower' in scope, even though its authority is geographically 'wider' (covering the whole country).

Feature	Fundamental Rights (Part III)	Other Constitutional/Legal Rights
Source	Articles 12-35	Other Parts (e.g., Art 300-A, 301)
Article 32 Remedy	Directly available to Supreme Court	Not available
Article 226 Remedy	Available in High Courts	Available in High Courts

Sources: Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, p.29; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights, p.74; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights, p.106; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.96

5. Suspension of Remedies during Emergency (exam-level)

Hello! Now that we have explored the power of Article 32 as the 'Heart and Soul' of our Constitution, we must address a critical exception: What happens when the nation faces an existential threat? During a National Emergency (declared under Article 352), the state’s priority shifts from individual liberty to national security. The Constitution manages this via two specific mechanisms: Article 358 and Article 359. These provisions essentially 'put a lock' on the doors of the court, preventing citizens from seeking remedies for the violation of certain rights during the emergency period Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Emergency Provisions, p.176.

It is vital to distinguish between these two articles because they function very differently. Article 358 is narrow but automatic: as soon as a Proclamation of National Emergency is made on grounds of war or external aggression, the rights under Article 19 (freedom of speech, assembly, etc.) are automatically suspended. No separate order is needed. On the other hand, Article 359 is broader but discretionary: it empowers the President to specifically name which Fundamental Rights' enforcement shall be suspended. Crucially, under Article 359, the rights themselves are not abolished; they remain 'theoretically alive' in the Constitution, but your right to move the court for their enforcement is temporarily paused Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Emergency Provisions, p.177.

Following the excesses of the 1975 Emergency, the 44th Amendment Act (1978) introduced a 'sacred shield' to prevent the total erasure of human dignity. It stipulated that even during the gravest emergency, the President cannot suspend the right to move the court for the enforcement of Articles 20 (Protection in respect of conviction for offences) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Emergency Provisions, p.414. This ensures that the remedy for illegal detention remains available even when other rights are silenced.

Feature	Article 358	Article 359
Scope	Suspends Article 19 only.	Suspends the enforcement of rights specified by the President.
Activation	Automatic upon proclamation of emergency.	Requires a separate Presidential Order.
Absolute Immunity	None.	Articles 20 and 21 can never be suspended.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Emergency Provisions, p.176; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Emergency Provisions, p.177; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Emergency Provisions, p.414

6. Article 226: The High Court's Writ Jurisdiction (exam-level)

While Article 32 is often the 'star' of constitutional remedies, Article 226 is the powerhouse that grants the High Courts their writ jurisdiction. It empowers every High Court to issue directions, orders, or writs—including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto—for two distinct purposes: the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for 'any other purpose'. This phrase 'any other purpose' is significant because it means High Courts can protect not just your fundamental rights, but also your ordinary legal rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.358. Because of this, we often say that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is wider than that of the Supreme Court, which is strictly limited to Fundamental Rights under Article 32 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Supreme Court, p.291.

An essential distinction to keep in mind is the nature of these remedies. Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right; therefore, the Supreme Court must provide a remedy when a violation is proven. In contrast, the remedy under Article 226 is discretionary. This means that even if a right is infringed, a High Court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction if, for example, an adequate alternative remedy exists Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.99. However, for a citizen, these jurisdictions are concurrent—if your Fundamental Rights are violated, you have the choice to move either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.358.

To help you visualize the comparison between the two, look at this table:

Feature	Article 32 (Supreme Court)	Article 226 (High Court)
Scope	Fundamental Rights ONLY	Fundamental Rights + Ordinary Legal Rights
Nature	Mandatory (It is a Fundamental Right)	Discretionary (It is a Constitutional Power)
Territory	All of India	Within its state/territorial jurisdiction

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.358; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Supreme Court, p.291; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.99

7. Comparative Analysis: Supreme Court vs. High Court Writs (exam-level)

While both the Supreme Court and the High Courts possess the power to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-Warranto, and Certiorari), their jurisdictions are governed by different rules and scopes. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court is specifically tasked with the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Because Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, the Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction when a violation is proven. It is thus characterized as the guarantor and defender of Fundamental Rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.99.

In contrast, Article 226 empowers the High Courts with a much wider functional scope. While the Supreme Court can only issue writs for Fundamental Rights, a High Court can issue them for Fundamental Rights and for 'any other purpose'. This phrase 'any other purpose' refers to the enforcement of ordinary legal rights. However, unlike the Supreme Court's mandatory obligation under Article 32, the remedy under Article 226 is discretionary; a High Court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction if an adequate alternative remedy exists Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.98.

From a territorial perspective, the Supreme Court's reach is national, extending throughout the territory of India. A High Court’s power is generally limited to its state boundaries, though it can extend beyond if the cause of action arises within its territory Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.175. Interestingly, while the Supreme Court is the 'higher' court, its writ jurisdiction is actually narrower than that of the High Court in terms of the types of rights it can protect.

Feature	Supreme Court (Art. 32)	High Court (Art. 226)
Purpose	Enforcement of Fundamental Rights ONLY.	Fundamental Rights + Ordinary Legal Rights ("Any other purpose").
Nature	A Fundamental Right; cannot be refused.	A Constitutional Power; discretionary.
Territory	Whole of India.	Respective State or where cause of action arises.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.98-99; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.152, 175

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the building blocks of Constitutional Remedies, you can see how this question tests your ability to distinguish between the scope and nature of writ jurisdiction. The fundamental concept here is the distinction between Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts). As noted in Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, while Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, it is restrictive in scope—it exists solely for the protection of the rights listed in Part III. Conversely, Article 226 is a constitutional power that grants High Courts a much broader reach.

To arrive at the correct answer, (A) 1 only, we must evaluate the specific limitations placed on these courts. Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction for writs is indeed limited to Fundamental Rights; it cannot be invoked for ordinary legal rights or other constitutional provisions. However, Statement 2 falls into a classic UPSC trap by using the restrictive word 'only' for both courts. While it applies to the Supreme Court, the High Courts have the power to issue writs for 'any other purpose,' meaning they can protect ordinary legal rights in addition to Fundamental Rights. This makes the High Court's writ jurisdiction wider than that of the Supreme Court.

The beauty of this question lies in how it tests your precision. Option (B) and (C) are wrong because they ignore the discretionary and wider power of the High Courts under Article 226. A common mistake is to assume that because the Supreme Court is the 'higher' court, its jurisdiction must be broader in all aspects. UPSC frequently uses this misconception to trip students up. Remember: the Supreme Court is the guarantor and defender of Fundamental Rights, but the High Court is the broader remedial gateway for various legal grievances.