It is stated that the Article 32 (2) provides the powers of the Supreme Court to be exercised in regards to issue a writ. It may be noticed that the constitution has mentioned all the writs by name, which were available under the English law. But the framers of the constitution were well aware of the fact that the conditions governing such law in India were entirely different from those of England. Hence, the same could not be transplanted in the constitution of India as such. Therefore to explore the scope of this jurisdiction to a far wider extent the words ‘directions’ and ‘orders’ were also incorporated in addition to the writs. Moreover, the scope of such directions and orders had again been left open. Such orders or directions may be
In the entire constitution of India there is only one provision of such nature which would have the power to suspend the assured right by the Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. It is stated that such available right is under Article 359 wherein under the proclamation of National Emergency the rights provided under Part III could be suspended. However, after 44th amendment to the constitution of India, fundamental rights as available under Article 21 and 22 cannot be suspended even in the state of emergency. It is specifically expressed that the right provided under Article 32 can only be suspended by a specific constitutional provision alone and not by any statute and there is a constitutional bar under Article 13(2) to enact any law violating the fundamental rights. Therefore, no such law could be enacted. Thus the only possibility of enactment of such law under the constitution is under Article 368 only i.e. by way of a constitutional amendment. However, after the pronouncement of the Supreme Court judgement in Kesavananda Bharti's case, the scope of such amendment has further receded. The doctrine of ‘basic structure’ laid down by the Apex Court in this case, although does not specifically prohibit the amendment of fundamental rights under Article 368 of the constitution, but it puts a specific condition on this power of the constitution. In the aforementioned case it was stated that if any amendment takes away any of the fundamental rights in its form or substance, it would amount to the amendment to the basic structure of the constitution and such an amendment would be pro tanto void. Thus any scope of suspension of this right beyond the present provisions of Article 359 is very limited and thus the right available under Article 32 has a very limited scope of suspension in any given