Article 32 guarantees the right to constitutional remedies for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and is a Fundamental Right itself. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other legal rights. The scope of Article 226 is broader than Article 32. High Courts have superintendence over subordinate courts (Article 227), a power not held by the Supreme Court over High Courts.
Consider the following statements with respect to Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India : Article 32 confers a right on the petitioner while Article 226 confer a discretion on the High Court. Article 32 and Article 226 confer identical power on the Supreme Court and the High Courts to enforce the Fundamental Rights. The power of superintendence of the Supreme Court over the High Courts is not similar to the powers of superintendence conferred on the High Courts over the courts subordinate to them. Which of the above statements is/are not correct?
Asked in UPSC Combined Section Officer 2019 20 · Topic: Fundamental Rights (Enforcement of Fundamental Rights and the Role of Judiciary)
More Indian Polity and Governance questions
- Which of the following statements relating to Fundamental Rights is not correct ?
- Who is the protector of the Fundamental Rights of a citizen?
- The Guardian of Fundamental Rights is
- Under the Constitution who among the following is the guardian of the Fundamental Rights?
- Which one of the following subjects comes under the common jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court?
- Assertion (A) : Mandamus normally is not issued to Govt. for making law. Reason (R) : Mandamus cannot lie in absence of policy. Once policy is laid down, terms of policy can be enforced.
- Which one of the following writs can be filed against a private person also ?
- Which of the following is the guardian of the Fundamental Rights?
