With reference to the writs, consider the following statements:1. The ...
Option (c) is correct:
The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court differs from that of a high court in three respects:
- The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights whereas a high court can issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose. The expression ‘for any other purpose’ refers to the enforcement of an ordinary legal right. Thus, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in this respect, is narrower than that of high court.
- The Supreme Court can issue writs against a person or government throughout the territory of India whereas a high court can issue writs against a person residing or against a government or authority located within its territorial jurisdiction only or outside its territorial jurisdiction only if the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the territorial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for the purpose of issuing writs is wider than that of a high court.
- A remedy under Article 32 is in itself a Fundamental Right and hence, the Supreme Court may not refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, a remedy under Article 226 is discretionary and hence, a high court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Article 32 does not merely confer power on the Supreme Court as Article 226 does on a high court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or other rights as part of its general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is thus constituted as a defender and guarantor of the fundamental rights.
With reference to the writs, consider the following statements:1. The ...
Understanding Writ Jurisdiction
The question revolves around the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India. Let's analyze the statements:
Statement 1: The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is narrower than that of the High Court.
- This statement is incorrect.
- The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows it to enforce fundamental rights.
- High Courts can issue writs under Article 226, which provides them with a broader jurisdiction concerning legal and constitutional issues, not limited to fundamental rights alone.
- However, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is considered to be more significant when it comes to upholding fundamental rights.
Statement 2: The territorial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is wider than that of a High Court.
- This statement is correct.
- The Supreme Court has nationwide jurisdiction, meaning it can be approached from any part of India.
- In contrast, the High Courts have jurisdiction over specific states or union territories.
- Therefore, the Supreme Court's ability to hear cases from across the country makes its territorial jurisdiction indeed wider.
Conclusion
- Since Statement 1 is incorrect and Statement 2 is correct, the correct answer is option 'C': Both statements are not correct.
- This illustrates the distinct roles and powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India’s judicial framework.
In summary, the Supreme Court has a wider territorial jurisdiction, while its writ jurisdiction is not narrower than that of the High Court but is instead more focused on fundamental rights.
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed UPSC study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in UPSC.