Declarations of Fundamental Rights are useless unless they are backed up by effective mechanisms for enforcing them. As a result, under Art. 32, the Supreme Court has the authority to issue several types of writs. The Supreme Court is the guardian of fundamental rights, according to the constitution. If a law approved by any legislature infringes on the people’s Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has the authority to declare it null and invalid. The Supreme Court’s writ power is limited to Fundamental Rights, but the High Court can issue writs on any subject or matter, including Fundamental Rights (Art. 226). As a result, it is clear that the High Court’s writ-issuing authority exceeds that of the Supreme Court of the United States.
When it comes to the power of SCs and HCs to issue writs, the following comparisons may be made:
As may be seen from the following, the HC has broader authority over the issue of writs:
The HC has a broader subject matter jurisdiction: it can issue writs to enforce any other legal rights in addition to fundamental rights, but the SC can only issue writs to enforce basic rights.
The HC has more latitude: Because Article 32 is an FR and offers a definite remedy for the enforcement of FRs, the SC is obligated to hear petitions seeking protection against FR violations. However, the HC may dismiss the writ petition on the grounds of res judicata, latches, and the availability of additional rights, among other things.
The SC has a broader writ jurisdiction than the HC in the following ways:
Territorial limit: The SC has broad authority over a large territory, but the HC’s jurisdiction is restricted to a single state.
The HC order cannot override the SC: Furthermore, Article 226(4) states that the powers granted to an HC are not in conflict with the authority granted to the SC by Article 32. (2). As a result, the SC has a broader jurisdiction than the HC.
For deep details, you can read the full article. Click the link below :
