3 minConstitutional Provision
Constitutional Provision

Judicial Review and Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32 & 226)

What is Judicial Review and Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32 & 226)?

Judicial Review is the power of the courts to examine laws or government actions. They check if these actions are allowed by the Constitution. If a law or action violates the Constitution, the courts can declare it illegal or 'unconstitutional'. Writ Jurisdiction is the power of the Supreme Court (under Article 32) and High Courts (under Article 226) to issue 'writs'. These writs are orders that direct a person or authority to do or not do something. They protect Fundamental Rights. The writs are: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto. These powers ensure that the government acts within the limits of the Constitution and protects citizens' rights.

Historical Background

The concept of Judicial Review was adopted from the United States. It was included in the Indian Constitution to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution. The power to issue writs has ancient roots in English law. In India, this power was initially vested in the High Courts. The Constitution makers wanted to provide a quick and effective remedy for violation of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, they gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs under Article 32. This article is considered a basic feature of the Constitution. The scope of Article 226 is wider than Article 32, as High Courts can issue writs for any purpose, not just for enforcing Fundamental Rights. Over time, the courts have played an increasingly active role in protecting citizens' rights through these powers.

Key Points

12 points
  • 1.

    Article 32 gives the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This is a guaranteed right, meaning the Supreme Court cannot refuse to hear a case involving violation of Fundamental Rights.

  • 2.

    Article 226 gives the High Courts similar powers to issue writs. However, High Courts can issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but also for 'any other purpose'. This makes the scope of Article 226 wider than Article 32.

  • 3.

    The five types of writs are: (a) Habeas Corpus (to produce a person in custody before the court), (b) Mandamus (to order a public authority to perform a duty), (c) Prohibition (to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction), (d) Certiorari (to quash the order of a lower court), and (e) Quo Warranto (to inquire into the legality of a person's claim to a public office).

  • 4.

    The Supreme Court can issue writs against the government or any individual throughout the territory of India.

  • 5.

    High Courts can issue writs against the government or any individual within their respective territorial jurisdiction.

  • 6.

    The power of Judicial Review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but is derived from several articles, including Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 226, and 246.

  • 7.

    Article 13 declares that any law that violates Fundamental Rights shall be void.

  • 8.

    Judicial Review helps maintain the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

  • 9.

    The doctrine of 'Basic Structure' limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. Laws that violate the basic structure can be struck down by the courts.

  • 10.

    The Supreme Court has the power to review its own judgments.

  • 11.

    The scope of Judicial Review has expanded over time through judicial interpretations and landmark judgments.

  • 12.

    The power of Judicial Review is essential for protecting the rights of citizens against arbitrary actions by the state.

Visual Insights

Article 32 vs. Article 226: Writ Jurisdiction

Comparison of Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts) regarding writ jurisdiction.

FeatureArticle 32 (Supreme Court)Article 226 (High Courts)
ScopeEnforcement of Fundamental Rights onlyEnforcement of Fundamental Rights and 'for any other purpose'
Territorial JurisdictionAll over IndiaWithin the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court
Nature of RightGuaranteed Fundamental RightDiscretionary power of the High Court
RemedyConstitutional RemedyLegal Remedy
AccessibilityDirect access to Supreme CourtAccess through High Court

Recent Developments

7 developments
→

The Supreme Court has increasingly used its power of Judicial Review to protect environmental rights in recent years (2020-2024).

→

There are ongoing debates about the scope of Judicial Review and whether it should be limited to prevent judicial overreach.

→

The government has taken steps to improve the efficiency of the judicial system to reduce the backlog of cases.

→

The Supreme Court's judgments on privacy and data protection have expanded the interpretation of Fundamental Rights.

→

The use of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has increased the accessibility of the courts for marginalized communities.

→

Recent debates on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) highlight the tension between judicial independence and government involvement in judicial appointments (2015).

→

The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of access to justice for all citizens, regardless of their socio-economic background.

This Concept in News

1 topics

Supreme Court to Review Sabarimala Temple Entry Case in April

17 Feb 2026

The Sabarimala case underscores the critical role of Judicial Review in balancing religious freedom with other fundamental rights, particularly gender equality. The news highlights how the Supreme Court uses its writ jurisdiction to address alleged violations of constitutional rights arising from traditional practices. This case challenges the traditional interpretation of religious customs and tests the limits of religious freedom under the Constitution. The outcome could set precedents for similar cases involving conflicts between religious practices and fundamental rights. Understanding Judicial Review is crucial for analyzing the Sabarimala case because it explains the legal basis on which the Supreme Court can intervene in matters of religion to uphold constitutional values. The case demonstrates the judiciary's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and the protector of fundamental rights against potential infringements by both state and non-state actors.

Source Topic

Supreme Court to Review Sabarimala Temple Entry Case in April

Social Issues

UPSC Relevance

Judicial Review and Writ Jurisdiction are very important for the UPSC exam. They are frequently asked in GS-2 (Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice). Questions can be direct or indirect, testing your understanding of the concepts and their application.

In Prelims, expect factual questions about Articles 32 and 226, the types of writs, and the scope of Judicial Review. In Mains, questions often require you to analyze the significance of Judicial Review in protecting Fundamental Rights, maintaining the rule of law, and ensuring constitutionalism. You might also be asked to discuss the limitations of Judicial Review or the issue of judicial activism.

Essay topics related to the judiciary and constitutional values are also possible. Recent Supreme Court judgments and constitutional amendments related to these concepts are crucial for both Prelims and Mains.

Article 32 vs. Article 226: Writ Jurisdiction

Comparison of Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts) regarding writ jurisdiction.

Article 32 vs. Article 226: Writ Jurisdiction

FeatureArticle 32 (Supreme Court)Article 226 (High Courts)
ScopeEnforcement of Fundamental Rights onlyEnforcement of Fundamental Rights and 'for any other purpose'
Territorial JurisdictionAll over IndiaWithin the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court
Nature of RightGuaranteed Fundamental RightDiscretionary power of the High Court
RemedyConstitutional RemedyLegal Remedy
AccessibilityDirect access to Supreme CourtAccess through High Court

💡 Highlighted: Row 1 is particularly important for exam preparation

This Concept in News

1 news topics

1

Supreme Court to Review Sabarimala Temple Entry Case in April

17 February 2026

The Sabarimala case underscores the critical role of Judicial Review in balancing religious freedom with other fundamental rights, particularly gender equality. The news highlights how the Supreme Court uses its writ jurisdiction to address alleged violations of constitutional rights arising from traditional practices. This case challenges the traditional interpretation of religious customs and tests the limits of religious freedom under the Constitution. The outcome could set precedents for similar cases involving conflicts between religious practices and fundamental rights. Understanding Judicial Review is crucial for analyzing the Sabarimala case because it explains the legal basis on which the Supreme Court can intervene in matters of religion to uphold constitutional values. The case demonstrates the judiciary's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and the protector of fundamental rights against potential infringements by both state and non-state actors.