Which of the following statements is/are correct ?, 1. In India the constitutional remedy under Article 32 is available only in case of fundamental rights, not in the case of rights which follow from some other provision in the Constitution. . 2. Both the Supreme Court and High Courts can issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto only for the purpose of enforcement of . fundamental rights. Select the correct answer using the code given below :

Statement 1 is correct because Article 32 is specifically designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution [1]. The Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is restricted to these rights and cannot be invoked for other legal or constitutional rights [3]. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the Supreme Court's power is limited to Fundamental Rights, the High Courts possess a wider jurisdiction under Article 226 [1]. High Courts can issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for 'any other purpose,' which includes the enforcement of ordinary legal rights [3]. Consequently, the Supreme Court is the guarantor of Fundamental Rights, whereas High Courts have a broader discretionary power to address various legal grievances [3]. Therefore, only the first statement accurately describes the constitutional limitation of Article 32.

Sources

1. [1] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > WRITS-TYPES AND SCOPE > p. 98
2. [3] https://www.mcrhrdi.gov.in/crashcourse/presentations/SG%2008%20-%20Artcile%2032%20&%20226.pdf
3. [2] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > WRITS-TYPES AND SCOPE > p. 99