In which of the following cases Supreme Court can deny relief under article 32?
- ((a))
If there is a violation of Fundamental Rights.
- ((b))
In case of unequal pay for equal work in an organization.
- ((c))
If an aggrived person moves to enforce his/her right to the apex court in way of proper proceedings.
- ((d))
If there is violation of freedom of speech and expression.
Show Answer
In case of unequal pay for equal work in an organization.
The correct answer is Option 2.

Key Points
- Article 32
- It is one of the fundamental rights listed in the Constitution that each citizen is entitled.
- Article 32 deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution.
- It states that the Supreme Court “shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”.
- The right guaranteed by this Article “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution”.
- The article is included in Part III of the Constitution with other fundamental rights including Equality, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Life and Personal Liberty, and Freedom of Religion. Hence, Statement 4 is correct.
- Only if any of these fundamental rights are violated can a person can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32. Hence, Statement 1 is correct.
- Equal pay for equal work for both men and women is a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy of India under Article 39. Since it is not a fundamental right, Supreme Court can deny relief under article 32. Hence Statement 2 is not correct.
- The right to property is not a fundamental right. It was removed by the 44th Constitutional amendment act. It is a legal right and comes under article 300A. Therefore, the Supreme court of India Can deny issuing the writ.
- Since the right guaranteed by Article 32 (ie, the right to move the SC where a fundamental right is infringed) is in itself a fundamental right, the availability of alternate remedy is no bar to relief under Article 32.
- However, the SC has ruled that where relief through the high court is available under Article 226, the aggrieved party should first move the high court.
- People have the right to move the Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of their rights granted by part III of the Indian Constitution. In other words one can move to enforce his/her right to the apex court in way of proper proceedings is assured. Hence, Statement 3 is correct.
- In the Chandra Kumar case (1997), the SC ruled that the writ jurisdiction of both the high court and the Supreme Court constitute a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Both the High Courts and the Supreme Court can be approached for violation or enactment of fundamental rights through five kinds of writs:
- Habeas corpus (related to personal liberty in cases of illegal detentions and wrongful arrests)
- Mandamus — directing public officials, governments, courts to perform a statutory duty;
- Quo warranto — to show by what a warrant is a person holding public office;
- Prohibition — directing judicial or quasi-judicial authorities to stop proceedings which it has no jurisdiction for; and
- Certiorari — a re-examination of an order given by judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative authorities.
- In civil or criminal matters, the first remedy available to an aggrieved person is that of trial courts, followed by an appeal in the High Court and then the Supreme Court. When it comes to the violation of fundamental rights, an individual can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Supreme Court directly under Article 32. Article 226, however, is not a fundamental right like Article 32.


























































































