Sambhav-2024

• Start with briefly telling about the importance of writ jurisdiction
• Compare the writ jurisdiction of both the courts under various heads.
• Conclude Suitably

Introduction

The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India plays a pivotal role in safeguarding fundamental rights. The Supreme Court (under Article 32) and the high courts (under Article 226) can issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo-warranto.

While both institutions possess the authority to issue writs, there are distinctive features that differentiate their jurisdictions.

Further, the Constitution of India designates the Supreme Court as the guardian of fundamental rights, endowing it with the authority to issue writs for the enforcement of these rights. i.e. Supreme Court cannot deny a person when he or she approaches the court for the protection of his/her fundamental rights.

Body

Difference	Supreme Court	High Court
Articles	32	226
Scope of writs	Can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rightsq	Can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as other Legal purposes
Territorial jurisdiction	Can issue writs against a person or government throughout the territory of India	Can issue writs against a person or government within its territorial jurisdiction or outside it if the cause of action arises within it
Nature of remedy	A remedy under Article 32 is a fundamental right and the Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction	Can issue writs against a person or government within its territorial jurisdiction or outside it if the cause of action arises within it

Conclusion

In the Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Supreme Court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction of both high courts and the Supreme Court is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This implies that it cannot be ousted or excluded, even through constitutional amendments, ensuring a robust mechanism for the protection of citizens' rights.