Answer in 150 words: Right to Constitutional remedies in India. (2020, 10 Marks)
Granville Austin called Parts III and IV the “conscience of the Constitution” (The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, 1966). The right to constitutional remedies is what makes the Part III half of that conscience enforceable: B. R. Ambedkar named Article 32 the Constitution’s heart and soul because it makes access to the Supreme Court itself a fundamental right.
The constitutional scheme
- Art. 32(1) guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings to enforce Part III; 32(2) empowers it to issue directions, orders or writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto.
- 32(3) lets Parliament vest such powers in other courts (never used); 32(4) bars suspension except as the Constitution provides, i.e. Article 359.
- Arts. 33–35: Parliament may restrict rights of the armed forces, police and intelligence personnel; indemnify acts done under martial law; and alone legislate on these matters.
Article 32 and Article 226
- Article 226 is wider: High Courts may issue writs for fundamental rights and “any other purpose”, but the power is discretionary.
- Article 32 is narrower in scope yet stronger in status — a right, not a discretion. L. Chandra Kumar (1997) made review under both part of the basic structure.
Reach and expansion
- Read with Article 13, it carries judicial review of laws and executive action that breach Part III.
- The remedy runs mainly against the State (Article 12), but Articles 15(2), 17, 23 and 24 bind private persons, and Kaushal Kishor (2023, 4:1) held Articles 19 and 21 enforceable against non-state actors.
- S. P. Gupta (1981) relaxed standing, opening public interest litigation for those too poor or powerless to sue.
Limits and current issues
- Emergency: after ADM Jabalpur (1976), the 44th Amendment (1978) made Articles 20 and 21 non-suspendable; the rest may still be suspended.
- Relegation: the Supreme Court increasingly sends petitioners to High Courts first, reading discretion into a guaranteed right.
- Pendency: over 93,000 cases were pending before the Supreme Court in March 2026, and for habeas corpus delay is itself the injury.
- Access: a single court in Delhi, senior-counsel costs and thin legal aid keep the direct route formally open but practically distant for most citizens.
Conclusion
India’s remedial design is textually among the strongest anywhere — a right to a remedy, entrenched beyond amendment. Its real test now is institutional capacity: a guarantee rationed by docket and distance protects the litigant who can reach the Court more than the citizen who cannot.