The Constitution of India, often described as a living document, provides for a robust mechanism to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. At the pinnacle of this protective framework lies Article 32, which Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously termed the “heart and soul” of the Constitution. However, recent observations by the Supreme Court of India have sparked a critical debate within the legal fraternity regarding the increasing misuse of this extraordinary jurisdiction. A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recently expressed profound concern over the tendency of litigants to approach the Apex Court directly, even when similar matters are already pending before various High Courts. This trend, if left unchecked, threatens to undermine the judicial hierarchy and further strain an already overburdened Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
As legal practitioners, we must reflect on the gravity of these observations. The Supreme Court is not merely a court of appeal or a court of first instance for every grievance; it is a constitutional court intended to deal with questions of law that have national significance or involve gross violations of fundamental rights that cannot be redressed elsewhere. The “shortcut” approach\u2014bypassing the High Courts to seek immediate relief from the highest court in the land\u2014is becoming a systemic issue that requires urgent rectification.<\/p>\n
The recent remarks by the Bench highlight a pattern where Article 32 is being invoked “for everything.” The Court noted with regret that petitioners are increasingly ignoring the existence of Article 226, which empowers High Courts with writ jurisdiction. The specific concern raised by Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan pertains to cases where a petitioner has already set the law in motion in a High Court but chooses to file a parallel or subsequent petition under Article 32 to expedite the process or seek a more favorable forum. This practice not only leads to a duplication of judicial effort but also creates the risk of conflicting orders between the High Courts and the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
When a matter is pending before a High Court, it is a matter of judicial discipline that the party awaits the outcome or seeks an early hearing within that forum. Filing a petition under Article 32 for the same cause of action while the High Court is seized of the matter is a classic example of “forum shopping.” It demonstrates a lack of faith in the High Court\u2019s ability to deliver justice and places the Supreme Court in the unenviable position of acting as a trial court or a supervisor of routine litigation. The Apex Court’s warning serves as a reminder that the judicial process cannot be bypassed at the whim of the litigant.<\/p>\n
To understand why the Supreme Court is slamming this trend, one must look at the structural design of the Indian judiciary. Article 32 gives a citizen the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Conversely, Article 226 gives High Courts the power to issue writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for “any other purpose.” Paradoxically, the scope of Article 226 is wider than that of Article 32.<\/p>\n
Historically and legally, the High Courts are better equipped to handle localized disputes, examine factual nuances, and provide comprehensive relief. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held in cases like L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India<\/i> that the power of judicial review vested in High Courts is an essential feature of the Constitution. By bypassing the High Court, a petitioner deprives the judicial system of the benefit of the High Court’s wisdom and findings, which often serve as a vital filter before a matter reaches the Supreme Court on appeal. The current Bench’s observation underscores that the Supreme Court should be the last resort, not the first port of call, unless extraordinary circumstances prevail.<\/p>\nThe Menace of Forum Shopping and Judicial Backlog<\/h2>\n
The term “forum shopping” refers to the practice of choosing a court where the litigant believes they will receive the most favorable outcome. In the context of the Indian judiciary, this often involves skipping the High Court to approach the Supreme Court directly. This practice is detrimental for several reasons. Firstly, it clogs the Supreme Court’s docket with cases that do not necessarily involve complex constitutional interpretations. Secondly, it devalues the authority of the High Courts, which are constitutional courts in their own right, not merely subordinate entities.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court of India is currently grappling with a massive backlog of cases. Every frivolous or premature Article 32 petition takes away valuable judicial time that could have been spent on matters of national importance, such as constitutional bench references or death penalty appeals. When the Court says Article 32 is being used for “everything,” it is a plea for practitioners to exercise self-restraint and adhere to the established hierarchy of courts.<\/p>\n
When Dr. Ambedkar defended Article 32 in the Constituent Assembly, he envisioned it as a shield against the tyranny of the state. He believed that without a remedy, a right is a mere “pious wish.” However, he did not intend for this remedy to become a tool for procedural circumvention. The modern reality is that Article 32 is often invoked in matters involving service disputes, contractual disagreements, or routine criminal matters\u2014issues that are squarely within the jurisdiction of the High Courts or specialized tribunals.<\/p>\n
By invoking the “heart and soul” of the Constitution for mundane legal grievances, the legal community risks diluting the gravity of Article 32. If every case becomes a “constitutional emergency,” then no case is truly an emergency. The Supreme Court\u2019s recent “slamming” of this practice is an attempt to restore the sanctity of this provision. The Court is reminding us that while the right to move the Supreme Court is a fundamental right itself, its exercise must be tempered by the doctrine of alternative remedy and judicial propriety.<\/p>\n
What happens when the Supreme Court entertains petitions that should have been heard by the High Courts? It creates a ripple effect of inefficiency.<\/p>\n
As Senior Advocates and members of the Bar, the responsibility lies heavily on our shoulders. It is our duty to advise clients against seeking “shortcuts” that ultimately weaken the judicial institution. When a client insists on filing an Article 32 petition despite a pending High Court case, it is the advocate’s duty to explain the risks of such a move, including the possibility of heavy costs being imposed by the Court.<\/p>\n
The Bench\u2019s frustration is a signal to the legal profession that the Supreme Court will no longer be a silent spectator to the erosion of procedural discipline. We must remember that the High Courts are not “lower” in the sense of being less capable; they are the primary protectors of rights in their respective states. Respecting their jurisdiction is essential for the smooth functioning of the Rule of Law.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court has, on various occasions, sent petitioners back to the High Courts, citing the existence of an “effective alternative remedy.” While the rule of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion rather than a rule of law, the Court has tightened its application in Article 32 cases. In recent years, the Court has become increasingly hesitant to entertain petitions under Article 32 if the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies under Article 226 or other statutory provisions. The observation by Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan is a continuation of this judicial philosophy, aimed at preserving the Supreme Court\u2019s role as a specialized constitutional arbiter.<\/p>\n
While Article 32 is a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has the inherent power to regulate its own procedure and ensure that its jurisdiction is not abused. The Court can refuse to exercise its discretion if it finds that the petitioner has approached the court with “unclean hands” or has suppressed the fact that a similar matter is pending in a High Court. The “absolute” nature of the right does not grant a license to ignore judicial decorum or the rights of other litigants waiting in the queue.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court\u2019s recent warning against the misuse of Article 32 is a necessary intervention. It is a call for a return to constitutional basics. The judicial system is a pyramid, and its stability depends on the strength of its base\u2014the Trial Courts and the High Courts. By attempting to jump straight to the apex, litigants and lawyers are creating an unstable structure that cannot sustain the weight of millions of seekers of justice.<\/p>\n
Moving forward, we can expect the Supreme Court to be more stringent in admitting Article 32 petitions. Litigants who bypass High Courts without compelling reasons may face dismissals with exemplary costs. This is not a restriction of rights but a refinement of the process to ensure that justice is not only done but is done efficiently and through the proper channels. As we navigate the complexities of modern litigation, let us uphold the dignity of all constitutional courts and ensure that the “heart and soul” of our Constitution remains healthy, vibrant, and respected.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, the message from the Bench is clear: Article 32 is a sacred provision reserved for the most significant of constitutional infringements. It is not an escape route for those impatient with the High Court\u2019s process. Restoring this balance is essential for the long-term health of the Indian judiciary and the preservation of the constitutional order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Sanctity of Article 32: A Double-Edged Sword in Contemporary Litigation The Constitution of India, often described as a living document, provides for a robust mechanism to protect the fundamental…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-constitutional-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}