Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 32 and Article 226 Compared

Article 32 gives every person a guaranteed right to move the Supreme Court for enforcing the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution, and that right is itself a fundamental right. Article 226 gives each High Court power to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights "and for any other purpose", so it is wider in scope but discretionary. In short, Article 32 is narrower and guaranteed, Article 226 is wider and discretionary, and both are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

This explainer is written for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for Constitutional Law papers, and for any citizen who has been told "file a writ" and wants to know which court to approach. Picking the wrong forum costs time and money, and examiners regularly test this comparison.

What does the constitutional text actually say?

Start with the bare text. Students who quote the words correctly score better than students who paraphrase loosely.

• Article 32(1): the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for enforcing Part III rights "is guaranteed".
• Article 32(2): the Supreme Court may issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.
• Article 32(3): Parliament may by law authorise any other court to exercise these powers within its local limits.
• Article 32(4): the right shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided by the Constitution.
• Article 226(1): notwithstanding Article 32, every High Court may issue directions, orders or writs, including the same five writs, to any person or authority, including any Government, within its territory, for enforcing Part III rights "and for any other purpose".
• Article 226(2): a High Court may also issue writs to an authority or person outside its territory if the cause of action arises wholly or partly within its territory.
• Article 226(3): where an interim order is passed without giving the other side the petition and a hearing, and that party applies to vacate it, the High Court must decide the application within two weeks, failing which the interim order is vacated.
• Article 226(4): the High Court's power does not reduce the Supreme Court's power under Article 32(2).

How are Article 32 and Article 226 different?

1. Scope: Article 32 covers only fundamental rights. Article 226 covers fundamental rights and legal rights, such as a statutory right under a service rule or a tax law.
2. Nature: Article 32 is itself a fundamental right. Article 226 is a constitutional power that the High Court exercises with discretion.
3. Territory: the Supreme Court's writ runs across India. A High Court's writ runs within its territory, extended by the cause of action rule in Article 226(2).
4. Suspension: Article 32(4) allows suspension only as the Constitution provides. Article 226 has no equivalent clause.
5. Forum: a person in Kanyakumari District files a writ petition at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which has covered the southern districts, including Kanyakumari, since its inauguration on 24 July 2004.

Which leading cases should you know?

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)

Decided on 26 May 1950, this case gave an early answer to the question "must I go to the High Court first?". The Court said Article 32 provides a "guaranteed" remedy, that the Supreme Court is "the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights", and that it cannot refuse to entertain such applications. It rejected the objection that the petitioner should first have approached the High Court under Article 226.

Daryao v. State of U.P. (1961)

Decided on 27 March 1961 by a five-judge Bench, this case applied res judicata between the two articles. If a High Court dismisses an Article 226 petition on merits after a contested hearing, the same party cannot file a fresh Article 32 petition on the same facts. A dismissal for laches or alternative remedy, a dismissal in limine without a speaking order, or a withdrawal generally does not create that bar. The proper route against a merits decision is an appeal.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

A seven-judge Constitution Bench held on 18 March 1997 that the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of the "inviolable basic structure". Clauses in Articles 323A and 323B and Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 were struck down to the extent they excluded that jurisdiction. Tribunal decisions are subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court.

Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998)

This case lists when an alternative remedy does not bar a writ under Article 226: enforcement of a fundamental right, violation of natural justice, or orders wholly without jurisdiction or a challenge to the validity of an Act. The Supreme Court restated these exceptions on 20 April 2021 in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, as explained in this SCC Online explainer.

What is the position in 2026?

The text of both articles has not changed. In practice, though, the Supreme Court often declines Article 32 petitions and asks petitioners to approach the High Court first. A Bar and Bench column published on 19 March 2026 reports that, the previous month, a Bench presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant refused to entertain an Article 32 petition seeking action over alleged hate speech by the Assam Chief Minister and sent the petitioners to the Gauhati High Court. The column's author argues that this practice sits uneasily with Romesh Thappar, a Constitution Bench ruling, and that any different reading should come from a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3). For an exam, present both sides: the text and Romesh Thappar make Article 32 a guaranteed right, while the current practice treats the High Court as the first stop in most cases.

Which court should a citizen approach?

Take a tenant in Madurai whose water connection is cut by a local body without notice. That raises an issue of a legal right and natural justice, so a writ petition at the Madurai Bench under Article 226 is the natural route. Contrast a student in Nagercoil challenging a nationwide rule that affects equality under Article 14 across many States. That student may file under Article 32, but should expect the Supreme Court to ask why the High Court was not approached first. Writ practice is technical, so speak to an advocate, or approach a legal services authority if you cannot afford one.

How should you write this answer in an exam?

1. Open with a two line definition of each article and quote the key words: "is guaranteed" and "for any other purpose".
2. Draw a comparison table or numbered list covering scope, nature, territory, suspension and discretion.
3. Cite the four leading cases with names and years, one line each on the rule.
4. Add the current practice of relegating petitioners to High Courts and the criticism of it.
5. Conclude with the basic structure point from L. Chandra Kumar.

Students who want to see writ drafting in practice can volunteer with the college legal aid clinic.

Sources

• The Constitution of India, India Code: official text, updated to May 2022, including Article 32.
• Article 226, Constitution of India (constitutionofindia.net): text of Article 226 with drafting history.
• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Supreme Court Reports: judgment dated 26 May 1950.
• Daryao v. State of U.P., Supreme Court of India: judgment dated 27 March 1961.
• Law Commission Report 215 on L. Chandra Kumar (AdvocateKhoj): summary of the 1997 seven-judge decision.
• Bar and Bench column, 19 March 2026: commentary on the current practice of sending Article 32 petitions to High Courts.