In this article, the author has explained the importance of the right to constitutional remedies with the help of
Understand the right to constitutional remedies
Part III of the Indian Constitution deals with fundamental rights, but it is not enough just to write down a list of rights. There should be a way in which these rights can be put into practice and, accordingly, defended against any assault on these essential rights guaranteed by the Constitution to each and every citizen of India.
Right to constitutional remedies is the way in which this can be achieved. Dr. Ambedkar considered the right to constitutional remedies to be the heart and soul of the constitution. This is because the citizens of our country have the right to go to the Supreme Court to enforce these rights, and the state is prohibited from making laws that violate or violate these fundamental rights.
The right to constitutional remedies gives citizens the right to turn to the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court to restore a fundamental right in the event of violations. Thereafter, the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of the Government may issue an order or order to enforce those rights.
The right to appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts
This right gives an insight into 5 types of documents that can be given by the courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. Jurisdiction may be exercised by the Supreme Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The right to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 32 is in itself a fundamental right. It offers a guaranteed, comprehensive and quick remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental right, as in this case the person can go to the Supreme Court immediately without going to any of the lower courts.
Article 32 states that the Supreme Court “has the power to issue instructions, orders, or letters, including habeas corpus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, as appropriate to enforce any of the rights it grants this part. The right guaranteed by this article is not suspended unless otherwise provided in this Constitution.
In the case of the enforcement of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court is originally competent, but not exclusively. It complies with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that wherever the law is violated, those concerned should move to the High Court first.
What are fonts?
Papers are written orders from the Supreme Court of India to provide constitutional remedies in the event of a violation of any fundamental right. Accordingly, the Constitution gave the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court the power to issue orders or letters. These were borrowed from English law, where they were known as “Prerogative Writs”.
Types of fonts
The 5 types of scriptures followed in India are:
- Habeas corpus – This letter is being enforced to protect the fundamental right to freedom of a citizen of our country from unlawful detention if the reasons for detention are not lawful or satisfactory. It can be issued against public bodies as well as against private individuals.
in the Kanu Sanyal versus District Magistrates, The Supreme Court held that, in processing an application for habeas corpus, the court could review the legality of the detention without arresting the person to be submitted.
- Mandamus – This letter can be issued if the court learns that the respective incumbent does not have his legal duty and is ultimately violating a person’s right. This letter can be issued against any public agency, corporation, inferior court, tribunal, or government, but is not available against any individual or entity.
in the SPGupta v Union of India, Here the judges of the court were of the opinion that the joke cannot be used against the Indian president in order to determine the number of judges and vacancies on the Supreme Court.
- Certiorari – In this letter, the court has the power to instruct a lower court or other authority to refer a pending matter to the higher authority or the higher court. This letter can be issued against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities as well as against administrative authorities. However, it is not available against legislatures and individuals.
in the Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. The Supreme Court explained the scope and scope of this letter, noting that Certiorari is always available against inferior courts and not against equal or higher courts.
- Ban – This letter will be issued by a higher court, either the Supreme Court or one of the Supreme Courts, if one of the lower courts is examining a case that is beyond its jurisdiction. This only applies against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
in the East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Customs collectorA letter was passed from Certiorari instructing an inferior tribunal to continue the process and finding that the process was outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
- Quo warranto – This simply means “by whatever authority or warrant”. It is issued by the court to examine the legality of a person’s right to public office. This helps prevent a person from illegally usurping public office. Anyone can obtain this document, and it may not necessarily be a harmed person.
in the Jamalpur Arya Samaj versus Dr. D. RamIt was established here that the Quo Warranto letter cannot be directed against an official of a private nature. It is also very important that the office has a substantive character.
Dr. BR Ambedkar had said that the rights invested in the Supreme Court could not be taken away until the Constitution is amended and that this is one of the greatest safeguards that can be made for an individual’s safety.
In addition, the members of the drafting committee said that this right is fundamental to all fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution.
In addition, it was even discussed whether the fundamental rights including these could be suspended or restricted during the emergency period and it was found that this article cannot be suspended during the emergency period.
During the emergency, the Supreme Court ruled in an additional district judge, Jabalpur v SS Shukla (1976), that a citizen loses his or her right to appeal to the court under Article 32.
At the same time, the constitutional experts have ruled that it is at the discretion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and each individual judge whether an intervention in a case is warranted or whether it could also be heard first by the High Court.
In the Romesh Thapar v Madras State (1950) case, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 32 was a guaranteed remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court of Justice was set up as the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights and, therefore, with this responsibility transferred to the court, it cannot refuse applications for protection in the event of a violation of one of the fundamental rights.
Hence, the labeling of the right to constitutional remedy to be the heart and soul of the Indian Constitution is very correct.