High Court Test 9
10 min40 WPM required495 words
Click on the passage and start typing to begin.
The constitutional remedies available to citizens and persons under the Constitution of India are among the most significant features that distinguish India's constitutional framework and provide effective legal protection for fundamental rights against infringement by the state and its instrumentalities. Article 32 of the Constitution confers on the Supreme Court the power to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and Dr B.R. Ambedkar described this article as the very soul of the Constitution. Article 226 confers on every High Court the power to issue to any person or authority, including any government, within its territorial jurisdiction, directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. The scope of Article 226 is thus wider than that of Article 32, since High Courts can issue writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for other purposes, such as to correct jurisdictional errors of inferior courts and tribunals. The writ of habeas corpus, literally meaning that you have the body, is the most fundamental remedy for unlawful detention, commanding the authority detaining a person to produce that person before the court and to justify the detention; if the detention is found to be without legal authority, the court orders the immediate release of the detainee. The writ of mandamus commands a public authority to perform a public duty which it is legally obligated to perform and is refusing or neglecting to perform; it is available against public authorities, statutory bodies, and inferior courts but not against the High Court or the Supreme Court or private persons except in certain circumstances. Certiorari lies to quash the order of an inferior court, tribunal, or public authority made without or in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or where the decision is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Prohibition issues to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction and is distinguished from certiorari in that it is a preventive rather than a corrective remedy. Quo warranto calls upon a person holding a public office to show by what authority they hold that office and is available to test the legality of appointments to public offices. The High Court's power under Article 226 is supervisory in character, and the High Court does not in exercise of this power sit in appeal over the factual findings of the subordinate authority but confines itself to questions of jurisdiction, natural justice, and legality. The standing requirements for filing writ petitions have been liberalised through the doctrine of public interest litigation, under which any member of the public with bona fide concern for public interest may move the court for relief on behalf of those who are unable to approach the court themselves.