Judicial Hierarchy and Article 32: Supreme Court Discourages Bypassing High Courts

The Supreme Court of India has recently reaffirmed a significant procedural principle regarding the exercise of writ jurisdiction. It discouraged the practice of litigants directly approaching the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution for matters that can be effectively adjudicated by High Courts under Article 226. While Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right—famously described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution—the Court emphasized that it should not be the first resort when an alternative, equally efficacious remedy exists. The Court’s observation stems from the need to preserve the judicial hierarchy and ensure the efficient functioning of the justice system. Article 226 of the Constitution grants High Courts a broader jurisdiction than Article 32; while the Supreme Court can only issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, High Courts can issue them for Fundamental Rights as well as 'for any other purpose.' By bypassing High Courts, litigants contribute to the burgeoning pendency of cases at the apex level, potentially transforming the Supreme Court into a court of first instance rather than a final court of appeal and a constitutional arbiter.