Implementation of the basic rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution is the only purpose of Article 32. A proceeding under Article 32 is described by the Constitution as a “Constitutional Remedy” for the enforcement of the fundamental rights included in Part III, and the right to bring such proceedings before the Supreme Court is itself a Fundamental Right in Part III. Despite the fact that a fundamental right may be enforced through other proceedings, such as a declaratory suit under the ordinary law or an application under Article 226 or as a defense to legal proceedings brought against an individual.
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is one of the most crucial provisions safeguarding the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. It empowers individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court of India for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. This provision plays a pivotal role in upholding the essence of democracy, ensuring that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not merely ornamental but are effectively protected and enforced. In this essay, we will delve deep into the significance, historical context, interpretation, and impact of Article 32 within the framework of the Indian Constitution.
Historical Context
To understand the significance of Article 32, it’s imperative to delve into the historical context surrounding its inclusion in the Indian Constitution. The idea of providing a mechanism for the enforcement of fundamental rights emerged from the bitter experience of colonial rule and the struggle for independence. The freedom movement highlighted the need to secure fundamental rights against arbitrary state action.
During the Constituent Assembly debates, several members voiced concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the Drafting Committee, emphasized the need for a robust mechanism to enforce these rights. He viewed Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, as it provided citizens with an effective remedy against the violation of their fundamental rights. The inclusion of Article 32 reflected the Assembly’s commitment to ensuring that the rights enshrined in the Constitution were not mere parchment promises but had real teeth.
Significance of Article 32
Direct Access to Supreme Court: Article 32 grants individuals the right to directly approach the Supreme Court if they believe their fundamental rights have been infringed. This direct access bypasses lower courts, enabling expeditious adjudication of fundamental rights violations.
Writ Jurisdiction: Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the enforcement of fundamental rights. These writs serve as potent tools for the protection of individual liberties against encroachment by the state or other entities.
Guardian of the Constitution: Article 32 establishes the Supreme Court as the guardian of the Constitution. It empowers the Court to strike down any law or executive action that contravenes fundamental rights, thus ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution.
Equal Access to Justice: Article 32 ensures that all citizens, regardless of their socio-economic status, have equal access to justice. It provides a level playing field for the vindication of fundamental rights, irrespective of one’s position or influence.
Remedy Against State Tyranny: Article 32 serves as a bulwark against state tyranny by providing citizens with a recourse against arbitrary actions of the government. It acts as a deterrent against abuse of power and fosters accountability within the state machinery.
Interpretation and Evolution
Over the years, the Supreme Court has played a proactive role in interpreting and expanding the scope of Article 32 to ensure effective enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court has adopted a liberal and expansive approach, recognizing the dynamic nature of fundamental rights and the evolving needs of society. Some notable interpretations and developments include:
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The Supreme Court has widened the scope of Article 32 to allow Public Interest Litigation (PIL), enabling any citizen or organization to seek judicial redressal for violations of public interest, even if they are not directly affected. PIL has been instrumental in addressing issues such as environmental degradation, corruption, and protection of marginalized communities.
Expansion of Writ Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has interpreted the term “law” in Article 32 broadly to encompass not only statutory laws but also executive actions, rules, regulations, and even constitutional amendments. This expansive interpretation has facilitated the Court’s intervention in diverse matters affecting fundamental rights.
Innovative Remedies: In several landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has devised innovative remedies to address complex socio-legal issues. For instance, in the Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Court held that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to travel abroad, expanding the horizons of individual liberty.
Judicial Activism: The judiciary’s proactive stance in enforcing fundamental rights has sometimes been criticized as judicial activism. However, proponents argue that such activism is necessary to protect the rights of the marginalized and ensure justice in the face of executive or legislative inaction.
Impact and Criticisms
Article 32 has had a profound impact on the protection and enforcement of fundamental rights in India. Its significance can be gauged from several landmark judgments that have shaped the country’s legal landscape. Some notable impacts include:
Social Justice: Article 32 has been instrumental in advancing the cause of social justice by providing marginalized communities with a platform to assert their rights. Landmark judgments such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) have expanded the scope of fundamental rights to encompass socio-economic entitlements.
Judicial Independence: Article 32 reinforces the principle of judicial independence by insulating the judiciary from external pressures and ensuring its autonomy in adjudicating disputes involving fundamental rights. This independence is vital for upholding the rule of law and preserving constitutional democracy.
Checks and Balances: Article 32 serves as a crucial check on the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government. By enabling the judiciary to review and invalidate laws or actions inconsistent with fundamental rights, it ensures a system of checks and balances essential for the functioning of a democratic polity.
Despite its significance, Article 32 has also faced criticisms and challenges:
Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the expansive interpretation of Article 32 has led to judicial overreach, with the judiciary encroaching upon the domain of the executive and legislature. They contend that such overreach undermines the principle of separation of powers and may impede the functioning of democratic institutions.
Access to Justice: While Article 32 guarantees access to justice, the reality is that many marginalized communities still face barriers in availing legal remedies. Factors such as poverty, illiteracy, and lack of awareness often hinder their ability to approach the courts effectively.
Burden on Judiciary: The increasing number of petitions under Article 32 has put a strain on the resources of the judiciary, leading to delays in the disposal of cases. This backlog undermines the efficacy of the remedy provided under Article 32 and diminishes public confidence in the judicial system.
Landmark Judgements
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This case is significant for establishing the doctrine of ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution,’ wherein the Supreme Court held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. This judgement reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the Constitution under Article 32.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) by interpreting it broadly to include the Right to Travel Abroad. The judgement emphasized that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Also known as the ‘Judges Transfer Case,’ this judgement upheld the independence of the judiciary and affirmed the supremacy of the Constitution. The Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review and ruled that the primacy of the Constitution cannot be compromised.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): In this landmark judgement, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women in the workplace, recognizing it as a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): This case struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provided for the arrest of individuals for posting allegedly offensive content online. The Supreme Court held that the provision was unconstitutional as it violated the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
Conclusion
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution stands as a bulwark of individual liberties and a cornerstone of constitutional democracy. Its significance lies in providing citizens with a direct avenue to enforce their fundamental rights and holding the state accountable for any infringement thereof. Over the years, the Supreme Court has played a proactive role in interpreting and expanding the scope of Article 32 to address the evolving needs of society. While criticisms and challenges exist, Article 32 remains a potent tool for the protection of rights and the promotion of justice and equality in India. Its continued vigilance and robust enforcement are essential to uphold the values enshrined in the Constitution and ensure the well-being of all citizens.
References
Basu, Durga Das,(2002), Introduction to the Constitution of India, Wadhwa Nagpur.
Basu, Durga Das, (2008), shorter Constitution of India.
Constituent Assembly Debates, 1948, Vol- 7.
Kesavananda vr. State of Kerala, AIR 1973, SC 1461.