(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided by this Constitution.
According to article 13 fundamental rights are enforceable and any law inconsistent with a Fundamental Right is void. Article 13 is the key provision as it makes Fundamental Right justiciable. Article 13 confers a power and imposes a duty and an obligation on the courts to declare a law void if it is inconsistent with a fundamental right. Article 32 confers power on the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights.
Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0012/1961 : AIR 1961 SC 1457: 1962 (1) SCJ 702: (1962) 1 SCR 574. The Supreme Court observed that the fundamental rights are included not only to protect individual's rights but they are based on high public policy. Liberty of the individual and the protection of the Fundamental Rights are the very essence of the democratic way of life adopted by the Constiution and it is the privilege and the duty of this court to uphold those rights. This would naturally refuse to circumvent them or to curtail them except as provided by the Constitution itself.
Premchand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0082/1962 : AIR 1963 SC 996: (1963) 2 SCA 125: (1963) SUPP 1 SCR 885. The Supreme Court has described the significance of article 32 in the following words:-
"The Fundamental Rights to move this court can therefore be appropriately described as the cornerstone of the democratic edifice raised by the Constiution. That is why it is natural that this court should regard itself as the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights and should declare that it cannot, consistently with the responsibility laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protections".
Public Interest Litigation.-
The concept of Public Interest Litigation requires that a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law, where any such legal injury or illegal burden is threatened, and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court, any other person, on his or their behalf, can approach the Supreme Court under article 32 or the High Court under article 226.
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0058/1980 : AIR 1981 SC 298: (1981) 1 SCC 246: 1981 SCC (Lab) 50: (1981) 2 SCR 185. It was held that Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway), though an unregistered association could maintain a writ petition under article 32 for the redressal of a common grievance.
S.P. Gupta v. President of India, MANU/SC/0080/1981 : AIR 1982 SC 149: 1981 Supp SCC 87: (1982) 2 SCR 365. The Court held that any member of the public having 'sufficient interest' can approach the court for enforcing constitutional or legal rights of other persons and redress of a common grievance.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0051/1983 : AIR 1984 SC 802: 1992 AIR SCW 2212: JT 1991 (3) SC 408: MANU/SC/0618/1991 : (1991) 4 SCC 177: (1991) 3 SCR 524. The Supreme Court entertained a matter concerning release of bonded labour raised by the organisation dedicated to the cause of release of bonded labour. The court emphasized that PIL is not in the nature of advisory litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable section of the society.
Balco Employees' Union (Regd) v. Union of India, AIR 2009 SC 350: 2001 AIR SCW 5135: JT 2001 (10) SC 466: MANU/SC/0779/2001 : (2002) 2 SCC 333: 2002 (1) SCJ 123: (2001) 8 SCALE 541: 2001 (8) Supreme 660. The court reminded that the only ground on which a person can maintain a PIL is where there has been an element of violation of article 21 or human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the under-privileged who are unable to come to the court due to some disadvantage.
Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this part shall, in their application to-
(a) the members of the armed Forces; or
(b) the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or
(c) persons employed in any bureau or other organisation established by the State for purposes of intelligence or counter intelligence; or
(d) persons employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the purposes of any Force, bureau or organisation referred to in clauses (a) to (c), be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.
Article 33 is an exception to the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. The article empower the Parliament to restrict or abrogate by law fundamental rights. The object of this restriction is to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and maintenance of discipline amongst them.
Union of India v. A. Hussain, MANU/SC/0874/1998 : AIR 1998 SC 577: 1998 AIR SCW 171: (1998) 1 SCC 537: 1997 (5) SCJ 55: (1997) 7 SCALE 477: 1998 SCC (Cri) 437: 1997 (10) Supreme 377: 1998 (1) UJ (SC) 165. The Supreme Court described a
court-martial as follows: "It has been rightly said that court-martial remains to a significant degree a specialized mechanism by which the military discipline is preserved. A court-martial has also the same responsibility as any court to protect the rights of the accused charged before it and follow the procedural safeguard".
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this part, Parliament may by law indemnify any person in the service of the Union, or of a State or any other person in respect of any act done by him in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in any area within territory of India where martial law was in force or validate any sentence passed, punishment inflicted, forfeiture ordered or other act done under martial law in such area.
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution-
(a) Parliament shall have, and the Legislature of a State shall not have, power to make laws-
(i) with respect to any of the matters which under clause (3) of article 16, clause (3) of article 32, article 33 and article 34 may be provided for by law made by Parliament; and
(ii) for prescribing punishment for those acts which are declared to be offence, under this part; and Parliament shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Constitution, make laws for prescribing punishment for the acts referred to in sub-clause (ii);
(b) any law in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution in the territory of India with respect to any of the matters referred to in sub-clause (1) of clause (a) or providing for punishment for any act referred to in sub-clause (ii) of that clause shall, subject to the terms thereof and to any adoptions and modifications that may be made therein under article 372, continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by Parliament.
Explanation: In this article, the expression 'law in force' has the same meaning as in article 372.
A.D.M., Jabalpur v. S. Shukla, MANU/SC/0062/1976 : AIR 1976 SC 1207: (1976) 2 SCC 521: 1976 Cr LJ 945: 1976 UJ (SC) 610: MANU/SC/0179/1976 : (1976) 3 SCC 454: (1976) 3 SCR 929: 1976 Supp SCR 172. Article 34 is primarily concerned with granting indemnity by law in respect of acts done during operation of martial law. The Constitution does not have a provision authorising proclamation of martial law. Declaration of martial law does not ipso facto result in suspension of the writ of habeas corups.
© Universal law Publishing Co.