Article 32 vs Article 226: Writs and Key Differences

Read this in Hindi: हिंदी में पढ़ें

Article 32 gives every person a fundamental right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights, while Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for fundamental rights and also “for any other purpose”, meaning ordinary legal rights. Both courts can issue the five writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto. Article 226 is wider in scope; Article 32 is itself a guaranteed fundamental right.

Why these two Articles matter

A right without a remedy is only a promise on paper. Articles 32 and 226 turn the rights in the Constitution into enforceable claims. When the State unlawfully detains, refuses to perform a legal duty, or acts beyond its powers, the writ jurisdiction allows a citizen to go straight to a constitutional court.

In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), a seven-judge bench held that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court under Article 32 and in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Parliament cannot take it away even by constitutional amendment.

Article 32: right to constitutional remedies

Article 32 is in Part III, so the right to approach the Supreme Court is itself a fundamental right. It has four clauses:

• Clause (1): guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court “by appropriate proceedings” to enforce Part III rights.
• Clause (2): empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders or writs, including the five named writs.
• Clause (3): allows Parliament to empower any other court to exercise these powers within its local limits, without affecting the Supreme Court’s powers.
• Clause (4): says the right shall not be suspended except as the Constitution provides.

Draft Article 25, which became Article 32, was debated in the Constituent Assembly on 9 December 1948. Dr B.R. Ambedkar described it as the most important article of the Constitution, calling it “the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it”.

In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court said it is the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, and it cannot refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of those rights.

Article 226: power of High Courts to issue writs

Article 226 is in Part VI, in the chapter on High Courts. It is not a fundamental right, but it is a constitutional power and, because of L. Chandra Kumar, part of the basic structure. Its key features:

• A High Court can issue writs to any person or authority, including the government, within its territory.
• It can do so for enforcement of Part III rights and “for any other purpose”, so ordinary statutory and legal rights are also covered.
• Under clause (2), a High Court can issue writs even to an authority located outside its territory if the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within its territory.
• Relief is discretionary. A High Court may decline, for instance, where an efficacious alternative remedy exists or the petitioner has delayed unreasonably.

Article 32 vs Article 226: the differences

The five writs

1. Habeas corpus

Meaning “you may have the body”. It directs a person or authority holding someone in custody to produce that person before the court and justify the detention. If the detention is unlawful, the court orders release. It lies against public authorities as well as private persons, and a relative or friend can file it for the detained person.

2. Mandamus

Meaning “we command”. It directs a public official, public body, corporation, lower court or government to perform a public duty it is legally bound to perform but has failed to do. It does not lie against a private individual or private body enforcing a purely private right, nor against the President or the Governor of a State, who are protected from court proceedings for official acts by Article 361.

3. Prohibition

Meaning “to forbid”. A higher court issues it to a lower court or tribunal to stop it from continuing proceedings in excess of its jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. It is preventive.

4. Certiorari

Meaning “to be certified”. A higher court issues it to quash an order already passed by a lower court, tribunal or authority, for excess or lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice or an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is corrective. Courts have extended it to administrative authorities affecting the rights of individuals.

A simple way to remember: prohibition stops a proceeding before the decision; certiorari quashes the decision after it is made.

5. Quo warranto

Meaning “by what authority”. It asks a person holding a public office to show the legal authority under which he holds it. If the holder is not qualified or the appointment is illegal, the court can oust him. The office must be a substantive public office created by statute or the Constitution, not a private or merely ministerial post. Unlike the other writs, any member of the public may seek it, even without being personally aggrieved.

Exam angle

• “Heart and soul”: CLAT and AIBE love the question on which Article Ambedkar called the heart and soul of the Constitution. Answer: Article 32.
• Scope difference: Article 226 is wider because it covers “any other purpose”. This is the single most tested difference.
• Writ identification: Judiciary prelims give a fact pattern (illegal detention, illegal appointment, pending case without jurisdiction) and ask which writ fits.
• Basic structure: UGC NET and judiciary mains ask about L. Chandra Kumar (1997) and the status of judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 227.
• Prohibition vs certiorari: Remember the timing test: before decision (prohibition) versus after decision (certiorari).

Quick quiz

Practise more

Constitutional law carries the largest share of CLAT PG and judiciary papers. Try the free CLAT PG 2027 mock, read 30 important Supreme Court judgments of 2026, and register for the All India CLAT Open Mock on 15 November.

Sources

• Constitution of India: Articles 32, 226, 359 and 361 (Legislative Department, Government of India)
• Constituent Assembly Debates, 9 December 1948 (draft Article 25)
• Supreme Court of India: Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
• Supreme Court of India: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125