What is the ground on which the Supreme Court can refuse relief under Article 32?

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is itself a fundamental right, making the Supreme Court the 'protector and guarantor' of fundamental rights [1]. Unlike Article 226, which is discretionary for High Courts, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on grounds such as the existence of an alternative remedy [2]. The court has clarified that the availability of another court or remedy is no bar to relief under Article 32 [2]. However, since Article 32 is specifically for the enforcement of rights conferred by Part III, a petition can be refused if no fundamental right has been infringed [3]. If the right in question is a non-fundamental constitutional right (e.g., Article 301), an application under Article 32 shall not lie unless a fundamental right is also violated [3]. Technicalities like not asking for the proper writ or the need to investigate facts are generally not grounds for refusal.

Sources

1. [1] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > WRITS-TYPES AND SCOPE > p. 99
2. [2] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > RICHTTO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES > p. 98
3. [3] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Exceptions to Funda· mental Rights. > p. 96