Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

Leading cases

• Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970)The majority struck down the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969, which nationalised 14 banks, for hostile discrimination, unreasonable restriction on business and failure to provide compensation under Article 31(2) on relevant principles.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule by amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 get no blanket immunity and can be tested against the basic structure, as reflected in Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19.
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)The Court struck down the provision for night-time domiciliary visits in the U.P. Police Regulations as violating personal liberty under Article 21, but held that the other forms of police surveillance infringed no fundamental right.
• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)The Court held Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 wholly void under Article 19(2) and quashed the Madras Government's ban on the entry and circulation of the weekly Cross Roads.
• Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023)The Court unanimously held there is no fundamental right to marry and declined to read the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex couples; by majority it declined to recognise civil unions or joint adoption by unmarried couples.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023)The Supreme Court can, under Article 142(1), waive the six-month period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act on a settlement, and can dissolve a marriage that has irretrievably broken down even if one spouse opposes.
• State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010)A High Court under Article 226 may direct the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence in a State without that State's consent; this neither violates the federal structure nor separation of powers, but the power must be used sparingly.
• Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005)By majority, the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not 'State' under Article 12, so a petition under Article 32 does not lie against it, though Article 226 may lie for its public duties.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)An enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for harm caused by an accident in it, without the Rylands v. Fletcher exceptions, and the Court may award compensation under Article 32 in appropriate cases.
• D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1986)The Governor cannot keep an Ordinance alive by repromulgating it successively without placing it before the Legislature; such repromulgation is a colourable exercise of power and a fraud on Article 213, and the surviving Ordinance was struck down.
• S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1986)The Court upheld the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service matters under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the Tribunal is an equally effective substitute for the High Court, and required changes to its composition and appointments.
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood, but Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, permitting removal of pavement encroachments without notice, is not unreasonable; evictions were deferred and resettlement assurances enforced.

Showing 12 of 27 judgments in the library on this provision, larger Benches first. Search the judgments

Questions on this article

59 questions in 83 of our papers cite Article 32. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. In Ramasrey @ Fakkad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (29 July 2026), convicts challenged, under Article 32, sentences directing that they would not be released for the remainder of their natural lives. The Supreme Court:

   A.dismissed the petitions, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Union of India v. V. SriharanB.declared such sentences void for taking away the State's power of remission under Section 432 CrPCC.allowed the petitions and directed the State to consider each of the convicts for premature release within four weeksD.referred the validity of such sentences to a Constitution Bench of five Judges for an authoritative and final ruling
   Show answer

2. 2. Which statement correctly compares Article 32 and Article 226?

   A.A High Court may issue writs only to authorities seated within its territory, even where the cause of action arises thereB.Only the Supreme Court may issue writs in the nature of quo warranto; a High Court cannot issue that writ under Article 226C.A High Court may issue writs to enforce Part III rights and for any other purpose; Article 32(2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs to enforce Part III rightsD.The Supreme Court may issue writs under Article 32 for any purpose; a High Court may issue writs under Article 226 only to enforce Part III rights
   Show answer

3. 3. The Right to Constitutional Remedies is guaranteed under which Article?

   A.Article 226B.Article 136C.Article 141D.Article 32
   Show answer