By Imperilex Legal
The Constitution of India posseses two immensly powerful articles which enable a person to directly approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India & Hon’ble High Court of the concerned states to protect the person from abuse of power including arbitrary use of powers granted to public as well as private bodies.
The crucial step is to evaluate the nature of problem and to understand which article should be better for proceeding with the problem and to get relief.
Both Article 32 & Article 226 holds powers if evaluated wisely, will increase percentage to maximum of getting relief.
Article 32
Article 32 empowers the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to entertain petitions in forms of different Writs to protect person whose rights been infringed already or will be infring by actions of public bodies.
Scope of Article 32
The scope of Article 32 is limited to the protection of Fundamental rights granted under part III of the Constitution of India. This article cannot be invoked to protect the legal rights which are already protected by other laws enacted by parliament. The reason for this limited jurisdiction is to not overburden Apex Court from multiple baseless petitions under which the relief requested can be granted by other Tribunals or Lower Courts under provisions of ordinary laws. It also prevents people from misusing the legal provisions and makes other parties to dispute sufffer in litigation.
In one of the judgment of 2025 of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited as “Satish Chander Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh”, it was stated “A litigant who is aggrieved by a decision rendered by this Court in a special leave petition or in a civil appeal arising therefrom can seek its review by invoking the review jurisdiction and thereafter through a curative petition. But such a decision cannot be assailed in a writ proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. If this is permitted, then there will be no finality and no end to litigation. There will be chaos in the administration of justice.”Also in another judgment of 2025 of Supreme Court of India cited as “
Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India”, it was stated that “
Article 32 of the Constitution of India empowers this Court in cases related to capital punishment to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty without ensuring that the guidelines mandated in Manoj (supra) were followed. This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the Manoj (supra) safeguards in such cases, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualized sentencing, and fair procedure that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India secure to every person.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India is the bedrock of constitutional remedies, but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters. Reopening will be reserved only for those cases where there is a clear, specific breach of the new procedural safeguards as these breaches are so serious that, if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused person’s basic rights to life, dignity and fair process.””
From the above two judgments one can conclude that Hon’ble Supreme Court allow petitions under which fundamental rights been violated, at the same time refrains from entertaing p[etitions which are filed to abuse the process of laws.
This approach of Hon’ble Supreme Court protects the holiness of remedies granted under Article 32 and prevents misuse of those remedies from ulteiror motives of people.
Article 226
The Hon’ble High Courts of different states by the virtue of Article 226 has benn granted wider jurisdiction to not only entertain Writ petitiones involving fundamental rights but also legal rights for which there is remedies avaiable in ordinary laws.
The Hon’ble High Court execrises much wider jurisdiction and the only reason for granting much wider jurisdiction to Hon’ble High Courts are that they are nearer to people and will act as primary legal gurdian.As Dr.Br.Ambedkar said “
The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights. But the power of the High Court is much wider, for it can issue writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for any other purpose.
This was done deliberately, because the High Courts, being nearer to the people, can act as general guardians of law and justice in the States.” This was done deliberately for two reasons as Hon’ble High Courts would be easily approachable by people living far from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and to protect Hon’ble Supreme Court from overburden of petitions which can be settled by a small amount of due diligence.
As said by Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar “If the High Courts are not given this power, every small matter will be rushed to the Supreme Court… The intention is that the High Courts shall function as the primary guardians of legality within their territories.”
Difference between Article 32 & Article 226
| ARTICLE 32 | ARTICLE 226 |
| Filed in Supreme Court | Filed in High Courts |
| Filed only for protection of Fundamental Rights granted under Part III of Constitution of India | Filed for protection of Fundamental Rights granted under Part-III of Constitution of India as well as for ordinary legal rights granted under other laws. |
| Strict scrunity to differentiate between Fundamental Rights & Legal RIghts | Lineant view compare to Article 32 |
| Limited/ Narrow Jurisdiction compare to Article 226 | Wider Jurisdiction compare to Article 32 |
| The Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its power under Article 32 if a Fundamental Right is violated. | The High Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 if an alternative remedy is available and not exhausted it. |
| Presence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to filing under Article 32. | High Courts generally discourage petitions under Article 226 if other remedies exist |
Conclusion
Articles 32 and 226 together form the backbone of the Indian constitutional framework ensuring judicial protection of fundamental and legal rights. While Article 32 is a fundamental right in itself empowering citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of their fundamental rights, Article 226 vests the High Courts with a wider jurisdiction, enabling them to issue writs not only for fundamental rights but also for “any other purpose.”
The vision of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in calling Article 32 the “heart and soul of the Constitution” reflects the framers’ intent to make the judiciary the ultimate guardian of liberty. At the same time, the expansive power under Article 226 ensures that justice is not centralised but remains accessible at the state level.
In essence, both provisions work in complementary harmony, the Supreme Court acts as the protector of fundamental rights at the national level, while the High Courts function as constitutional sentinels within their territories. Together, they secure the rule of law, accountability of public authorities, and the protection of citizens’ rights, reinforcing the democratic ethos of the Indian Constitution.