Introduction
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously referred to Article 32 as the “heart and soul of the Constitution.” This article enables citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution known as Fundamental Rights. Similarly, Article 226 of the Constitution empowers citizens to approach the High Courts to get similar remedies for Fundamental Rights, as well as other legal rights.
As of 2025, more than 10 lakhs of writs remain pending across the country, and the debate about which article serves citizenry and better continues. These articles have varying scope, reach, and varying ground situations, but both remain integral to the constitutional democracy of India, respectively.
Constitutional Background
| Feature | Article 32 | Article 226 |
| Jurisdiction | Supreme Court | High Courts |
| Purpose | Enforcement of Fundamental Rights | Enforcement of Fundamental Rights & Other Legal Rights |
| Nature | Fundamental Right itself | Constitutional Power |
| Scope | Narrower | Wider |
| Writs Available | 5 (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto) | Same five writs |
| Constituent Assembly View | Ambedkar: “Without it, this Constitution would be null and void.” | Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar: “High Courts are equally vital for rights enforcement at local level.” |
Types of Writs and Their Real Life Impact
The Constitution of India provides the means for citizens to approach the Supreme Court (by way of Article 32) or the High Courts (under Article 226) to obtain remedies for whatever violation of their Fundamental Rights could occur. Those remedies provided for in the form of five writs which are designed to serve their own intended purposes relative to upholding rule of law and constitutional accountability.
1. Habeas Corpus – “You may have the body”
In essence, this writ protects personal liberty against illegal detention. The prerogative writ lies with the court to make an order to the authority detaining an individual to bring him or her to court, with the expectation of demonstrating lawfulness of detention.
Historic Cases: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) curtailed liberty during Emergency; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) recognized personal liberty in Article 21’s reading.
Several Habeas Corpus petitions were filed in High Courts between 2023–25, disputing preventive detentions under strict laws such as the National Security Act (NSA) and UAPA, demonstrating that this writ is still relevant as a document of liberty.
2. Mandamus — “We command”
It is issued by the court to a public officer or authority if it fails to fulfill its authorities duties. Mandamus helps ensure that the government will act in accordance with the law.
Example- Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels (1983), the court compelled the authority to perform at the contractual request.
In present, this writ is mostly used for administrative accountability; to compel the authority to grant pensions, give licenses, or to release environmental clearances timely.
3. Prohibition — to curb excess of Power.
This writ is preventive in nature. It prohibits lower court and tribunal’s acting in excess of their jurisdiction before the order is made.
Mostly Prohibition is used for quasi-judicial bodies (tax tribunal, consumer forum etc) acting in excess of their jurisdiction.
4. Certiorari — Judicial rectification
This writ is issues by higher court to quash decisions or orders of lower courts or authorities acted illegally.
For example, in a recent case of administrative action or recruitment cases, the Supreme Court has used certiorari to set aside prejudiced or ultra vires decisions of the lower courts.
5. Quo Warranto – “by what authority?”
It is used to contest illegal appointments to public office. It ensures accountability in public administration.
Illustratively: Courts have used this writ to contest appointments to governmental boards or universities that occur without necessary process.
Why the Writs are Relevant
Even when decades pass since decolonization, the importance of Article 32 sustains the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar expresses. In an age of preventive detentions, administrative overreach, and privacy as it relates to technology, the writs stand as a citizens’ most direct line of defense vis-à-vis overreach.
Landmark Judgements arising from Article 32
The Article 32 provision empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly, “for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights,” thereby making it hugely significant to India’s constitutional democracy. Over decades, the Supreme Court has defined the meaning of Article 32 through notable judgements, extending the horizon of liberty, equality, and justice.
Statistical Snapshot (as of 2025)
| Metric | Supreme Court (Article 32) | High Courts (Article 226) |
| Pending Writ Petitions | ~70,000 (out of 81,000 total pending cases) | ~9.2 lakh across 25 HCs |
| Disposed Writ Petitions (2023–25) | ~12,000 | ~3.8 lakh |
| Major Issue Types | Habeas corpus, environmental PILs, digital privacy | Service matters, land disputes, local governance |
| Average Disposal Time | 2.4 years | 1.2 years (varies by state) |
Key Judgements
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950)
- One of the first cases to use Article 32.
- The Supreme Court made a ruling invalidating the restrictions on the circulation of a magazine, acting under the presumption that freedom of speech and expression is the bedrock of democracy.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Managed to redefine what personal liberty means under Article 21.
- The Court found that any “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable to be valid, which subsequently allowed the scope of Article 32 to embrace procedural fairness.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
- Found that the Right to Privacy is an inherent aspect of Article 21.
- It showed how Article 32 can adapt with technological change and contemporary rights agendas.
M.C. Mehta Cases (1980s–2023)
- In a series of petitions, environmental campaigner M.C. Mehta invoked Article 32 to address industrial pollution, the Ganga cleaning, vehicular emissions, and climate change.
- These cases served as the foundation for India’s environmental jurisprudence.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
- The Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalised speech online.
- It reiterated the capacity of Article 32 to protect digital freedom.
AI Surveillance PIL (2024)
- The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus to put safeguards on facial recognition and AI-surveillance by state police.
- This judgement in the modern context reflects the ecosystem of a newly developed Article 32 in the digital world – to protect citizens from rights violations enabled by technology.
Prominent Judgments under Article 226
Article 32 grants jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, while Article 226 grants jurisdiction to High Courts to issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and other legal rights. Over the years, High Courts have been effective as local guardians of justice.
Important Judgments-
V.G. Row v. State of Madras (1952)
The first significant case on reasonable restrictions under Article 19.
From here, the Madras High Court set initial guidelines for balancing personal liberty with state interests.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Finding the Right to Livelihood to be part of the Right to Life.
The “pavement dwellers’ case,” continues to be cited for social justice under Article 21.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
Inquired into preventive detention under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA).
Reaffirmed High Courts should review executive powers.
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014 & 2021)
Protected the independence of the judiciary, striking down clauses that impacted tribunal independence.
Recent Developments (2023–25)
The High Courts in Delhi, Bombay, and Calcutta have now vigorously used their jurisdiction under writ to:
- Safeguard digital privacy,
- Require adherence to environmental commitments, and
- Require timely investigations by police in human rights matters.
- Debate in the Constituent Assembly on Articles 32 and 226
- The Constituent Assembly passionately debated how citizens would have access to constitutional remedies which ended up developing a two-tier system of writs.
What is Changing on the Ground
The Supreme Court, now under significant backlog, is increasingly outright recommending citizens file their Article 226 suits first in their respective High Courts directly, discouraging direct petitions under Article 32
- Accessibility Factor:
Most citizens have found High Courts more accessible and expedited as a remedy for writ litigation. Thus, they are now the first port of call for seeking writs. - Excessive PILs:
The surge of Public Interest Litigations (PIL) —some bona fide requests for relief and some frivolous and vexatious — has shifted focus away from the more central issue of enforcement of fundamental rights. - Digital Rights Growth:
The Delhi High Court and Supreme Court has seen an increase in writs arising out of social media removal, AI surveillance and data privacy, for better digital rights protections. - Green Writs:
Environmental advocacy continues through “Green Writs” — petitions under Article 32 and 21 that blend ecology and constitutional rights.
(This follows on from the M.C. Mehta legacy cases).
Article 139 and the Future of Writ Jurisdiction
Article 139 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to confer writ jurisdiction on courts other than the Supreme Court and High Courts. It is an under-utilized provision since Independence. However, the Law Commission of India proposes a reformative idea in 2025:
- There are limited writs available for District Courts to ease the burden on the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
- If it comes to fruition, it will alter constitutional justice for the good and localize the process; that makes it easier for citizens to access justice without the need to travel to state capitals, or to Delhi, for enforcement of their rights.
Comparative analysis — Article 32 vs Article 226
| Aspect | Article 32 | Article 226 |
|---|---|---|
| Filed by Citizens | Directly in Supreme Court | Through respective High Courts |
| Nature | Fundamental Right | Constitutional Provision |
| Scope | Only for Fundamental Rights | Fundamental + Legal Rights |
| Jurisdiction | Original (but not exclusive) | Original & Wider |
| Delay / Cost | Higher (due to SC access) | Lower |
| Practical Preference (2025) | Decreasing | Increasing |
| Pending Ratio | 70k / 81k (≈86%) | 9.2L / 12L (≈77%) |
Current Reforms and Digital Developments
The Indian judiciary has introduced several changes to modernize the writ process and provide quicker access to justice:
- E-Writ Portal (2024): A new portal for filing writ petitions digitally and filing them at all High Court levels.
- AI-Based Allocation of Cases (2025): With e-Courts Phase III, cases are being allocated through AI algorithms to reduce delays and bias.
- Law Commission’s 280th Report: Noted that High Courts must acquire authority to enforce inter-state rights and not rely on the Supreme Court for every constitutional issue.
Conclusion — Power to Individuals and Access to Justice
Articles 32 and 226 are still the twin pillars of a rights-based democracy in India. In practical terms, Article 226 is the citizen’s first access point as it is typically accessible and has the widest geographic footprint.
However, Article 32 still protects the substantive and procedural law of rights at the national level by establishing a constitutional standard.
The future is about balancing both — the Supreme Court must protect the essence of a right while High Courts must protect the availability for citizens to place rights in practice every day.
Together these Courts treat the Rule of Law which is the heartbeat of India’s democracy.
