Consider the following statements regarding the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India: 1. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is wider than that of High Courts under Article 226 in terms of territorial reach. 2. High Courts can issue writs for enforcement of ordinary legal rights in addition to fundamental rights. 3. The power to issue writs can be suspended by the President during a National Emergency without any constitutional limitation. Which of the statements given above are correct?

💡 Solution & Explanation

Statement 2 is correct because High Courts possess broader authority under Article 226, enabling them to issue writs for both fundamental rights and ordinary legal rights, whereas the Supreme Court under Article 32 can only enforce fundamental rights. Statement 1 is incorrect because while the Supreme Court has nationwide territorial jurisdiction, High Courts have a wider scope regarding the subject matter of rights protected. Statement 3 is incorrect since the enforcement of rights under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during emergencies. Article 32 was described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the very heart and soul of the Constitution.