Question map
Which one of the following statements is not correct with respect to Article 32 of the Constitution of India?
Explanation
Article 32 of the Constitution of India is specifically designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights included in Part III [3]. It is itself a Fundamental Right, making it the 'cornerstone' of the constitutional edifice [1]. While the Supreme Court is the defender and guarantor of these rights, its jurisdiction under Article 32 is limited strictly to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights [3]. Unlike Article 226, which allows High Courts to issue writs for 'any other purpose' (including ordinary legal rights), Article 32 cannot be invoked for the enforcement of ordinary laws that do not infringe upon Part III rights. Regarding procedural aspects, while the Supreme Court generally does not refuse petitions solely on the ground of delay, it has the discretion to consider laches in specific circumstances, but the primary limitation of Article 32 is its scope, which does not extend to ordinary law [3].
Sources
- [1] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 81 > p. 152
- [3] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > WRITS-TYPES AND SCOPE > p. 99
- [2] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > RICHTTO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES > p. 98