Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    ARTICLE 32-Right To Constitutional Remedies

    Uploaded by

    gopika premarajan
    The document discusses Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce their fundamental rights. It establishes that the Supreme Court has the power to issue orders like writs of habeas corpus. However, the document raises questions about whether this right is being exercised in a non-discriminatory manner, citing examples where the Supreme Court discouraged some Article 32 petitions but not others, like those of journalist Arnab Goswami. It suggests this differential treatment undermines the principle of equal justice and raises concerns about bias in the justice system.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    ARTICLE 32-Right To Constitutional Remedies

    Uploaded by

    gopika premarajan
    46 views2 pages
    The document discusses Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce their fundamental rights. It establishes that the Supreme Court has the power to issue orders like writs of habeas corpus. However, the document raises questions about whether this right is being exercised in a non-discriminatory manner, citing examples where the Supreme Court discouraged some Article 32 petitions but not others, like those of journalist Arnab Goswami. It suggests this differential treatment undermines the principle of equal justice and raises concerns about bias in the justice system.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    ARTICLE 32

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce their fundamental rights. It establishes that the Supreme Court has the power to issue orders like writs of habeas corpus. However, the document raises questions about whether this right is being exercised in a non-discriminatory manner, citing examples where the Supreme Court discouraged some Article 32 petitions but not others, like those of journalist Arnab Goswami. It suggests this differential treatment undermines the principle of equal justice and raises concerns about bias in the justice system.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views2 pages

    ARTICLE 32-Right To Constitutional Remedies

    Uploaded by

    gopika premarajan
    The document discusses Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to move the Supreme Court to enforce their fundamental rights. It establishes that the Supreme Court has the power to issue orders like writs of habeas corpus. However, the document raises questions about whether this right is being exercised in a non-discriminatory manner, citing examples where the Supreme Court discouraged some Article 32 petitions but not others, like those of journalist Arnab Goswami. It suggests this differential treatment undermines the principle of equal justice and raises concerns about bias in the justice system.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ARTICLE 32- Right to Constitutional Remedies.

    The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of the country. It sets out various fundamental
    rights, directive principles, and the various duties that the citizens of the country have to abide
    by. The fundamental rights are specified in Part III of the Constitution.

    Article 32, a fundamental right that is enumerated in the constitution states that every citizen of
    the country has 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 like 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”. Dr. B. R.
    Ambedkar regarded this article as the soul and heart of the constitution. The landmark judgment
    of L Chandra Kumar vs Union of India and other cases which consisted of a panel of seven
    judges unanimously proclaimed that Article 32 was an integral part of the constitution.  

    Having understood the significance of this article, it is crucial to analyze whether this right is
    extended to all the citizens equitably. Justice is the ultimate goal that has to have aspired but it is
    fitting to say that this very concept is complex to acquire in today’s world. A couple of days ago
    the Chief Justice of India SA Bode found himself in the middle of an altercation when he
    claimed that the Supreme Court was “trying to discourage Article 32 petitions”. This was about
    the plea of habeas corpus made by a journalist from Kerala named Siddique Kappan. The
    journalist was arrested en route to Hathras, a locality in UP to cover the vicious incident of the
    alleged gang rape and murder of a girl. He was charged with sedition and various other charges
    under UAPA. The police claimed that he was a part of a conspiracy that intended to ignite
    religious disharmony. The court decided that they would hear his case four weeks later and also
    suggested him to move the Allahabad high court in the time being. 
    A similar situation arose in 2018 when a poet-activist Varavara Rao was sent to jail in the
    Koregaon-Bhima case. He was 80 years old at the time of his arrest and was bed-ridden. His
    family approached the court seeking relief owing to his decelerating health. The Supreme Court
    instructed the Bombay high court to hear the bail plea, but this plea has been pending since
    September. 
    However, an upturn of events took place when journalist Arnab Goswami was granted interim
    bail by the Supreme Court. CJI Bode, Justice A S Bopanna, and Justice V Balasubramanian had
    sent a contempt notice to the Assistant Secretary of Maharashtra Assembly in riposte to a letter
    sent by him to Arnab, questioning him for approaching the top court. The CJI continued to state
    that every citizen has the right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32.

    The cases that are stated above will make us question whether this right is being exercised in a
    non-discriminatory manner. Why is it that this right is available to some and not accessible to
    some? Should this be how our justice system should function? These are some of the questions
    that an individual with rational thinking pondering about. The Supreme Court is discouraging
    petitions under Article 32 primarily because they don’t want to overburden themselves. They
    encourage the parties to approach the lower courts so that they could reduce the number of
    pending cases to be addressed by them. While this may be the case, it is important to note that, it
    is completely prejudicial to give special consideration to certain cases or individuals.

    You might also like