The Right to Constitutional Remedies: Cornerstone of Fundamental Rights and Constitutionalism in India
Introduction
The Right to Constitutional Remedies, enshrined in Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, occupies a unique and paramount place in the architecture of Indian constitutional democracy. Referred to by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the “heart and soul of the Constitution”, this provision guarantees that individuals can approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Article 32 not only provides a procedural mechanism for redress but also functions as a substantive guarantee of justice, thereby reinforcing constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, and democratic accountability.
This essay critically examines the significance of Article 32, its interpretative expansion by the judiciary, and its role in empowering citizens and safeguarding fundamental rights in the face of state action or inaction.
1. Constitutional Position and Scope of Article 32
A. Textual Provision
Article 32 provides that:
- The right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is itself a Fundamental Right.
- The Supreme Court is empowered to issue appropriate writs—habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari—for this purpose.
This unique design, wherein the remedial right is constitutionally elevated, ensures that no Fundamental Right remains theoretical or unenforceable.
B. Complementary Provisions
While Article 32 relates to the Supreme Court, Article 226 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but also for other legal rights. However, Article 32 is narrower in scope but more sacrosanct, as its suspension requires a constitutional emergency under Article 359.
2. Article 32 as the Cornerstone of Fundamental Rights Protection
A. Fundamental Rights as Enforceable Guarantees
The Indian Constitution distinguishes itself from many others by providing mechanisms for judicial enforcement of rights. Article 32 ensures that:
- Citizens have a direct recourse to justice, bypassing bureaucratic or political hurdles.
- The Supreme Court assumes a supervisory role in protecting the sanctity of rights, especially in cases of custodial abuse, preventive detention, or executive overreach.
B. Shield Against State Arbitrary Action
In a democracy marked by executive dominance or populist tendencies, Article 32 serves as a judicial counterbalance, enabling courts to:
- Strike down unconstitutional laws,
- Invalidate administrative decisions, and
- Restrain authorities from violating rights under the pretext of public order, morality, or national interest.
3. Judicial Interpretation and Expansion
A. Transformative Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court has progressively broadened the interpretation of Article 32 to protect evolving rights and extend access to justice.
i. Expansion of Article 21
In a series of landmark cases, the Court has interpreted Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) expansively, using Article 32 to enforce:
- Right to livelihood (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985),
- Right to education (Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993),
- Right to clean environment (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987),
- Right to privacy (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017).
Article 32 thus became a vehicle for constitutional transformation, enabling courts to infuse social content into civil liberties.
ii. Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Through PIL jurisprudence, the Court has relaxed rules of locus standi, allowing public-spirited individuals to file petitions under Article 32 on behalf of marginalized groups.
Cases like:
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) (bonded labor),
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) (undertrial prisoners),
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) (sexual harassment at the workplace),
demonstrate how Article 32 evolved into a tool of social justice, administrative reform, and rights activism.
B. Balancing Judicial Activism and Restraint
The judiciary has also recognized the need for self-restraint, particularly when Article 32 petitions are used to bypass regular adjudication mechanisms or convert policy questions into constitutional matters.
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jeet S. Bisht (2007), the Court warned against the “danger of judicial populism” under Article 32, emphasizing that judicial remedies must remain grounded in rights enforcement, not governance overreach.
4. Empowerment and Constitutionalism Through Article 32
A. Democratic Empowerment
Article 32 empowers individuals, especially the disadvantaged and disempowered, by providing a direct interface with the highest judicial authority. It democratizes constitutional access by:
- Making the court a forum for rights-based claims,
- Enabling minorities and subaltern groups to seek legal redress,
- Holding public institutions accountable.
B. Institutional Checks and Rule of Law
By enabling judicial review, Article 32 enforces:
- Accountability of legislature and executive,
- Supremacy of the Constitution, and
- Non-arbitrariness of administrative actions.
It ensures that the rule of law prevails over executive expediency, reinforcing constitutionalism as a lived reality.
5. Challenges and Contemporary Concerns
Despite its importance, Article 32 faces several contemporary challenges:
A. Judicial Delay and Procedural Backlogs
- Despite being a fundamental right, Article 32 petitions often face procedural hurdles, limited benches, and delayed listings, diluting its efficacy.
B. Reduced Accessibility in Recent Years
- There has been concern over the Court’s selective admission of Article 32 petitions, especially those involving civil liberties and state repression.
- In Shaheen Bagh protests or arbitrary detentions in Kashmir, critics argue that the Court’s reluctance to entertain Article 32 petitions in a timely manner reflects an erosion of its watchdog role.
C. Need for High Court Empowerment
- While Article 226 allows High Courts to perform similar functions, uneven institutional capacities and political pressures often make Article 32 the only recourse for meaningful justice.
Conclusion
Article 32 remains the lifeblood of the Indian Constitution, anchoring the rights-based framework of the Republic. Its significance lies not merely in enabling redress, but in nurturing a constitutional culture where the state is not supreme but subject to law. Through its dynamic jurisprudence, especially in expanding the scope of fundamental rights and enabling public interest litigation, the Supreme Court has made Article 32 a living guarantee of justice.
Yet, to preserve its transformative potential, it is essential that Article 32 remains accessible, robust, and insulated from political and institutional dilution. It is the most visible expression of constitutional morality and a symbol of the people’s trust in the judiciary as the sentinel of their rights. In upholding Article 32, the Court safeguards not just individual liberties, but the democratic soul of the Indian Republic.
Discover more from Polity Prober
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.