How has the Supreme Court interpreted Article 32 over the years?

Recently Chief Justice of India, in Siddique Kappan journalist release case, said that the supreme court is “trying to discourage” individuals from filing petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.
CJI asked the journalist to approach High courts first and then approach the Supreme Court.
Let us understand what Article 32 is and how the SC has interpreted this article over the years.

Article 32 deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Only if any of fundamental rights is violated, a person can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.

- Haebeas Corpus: By this writ the court directs the person or authority who has detained another person to bring the body of the prisoner before the court so as to enable the court to decide the validity, jurisdiction or justification for such detention.

Mandamus: Mandamus is a command issued by a court to an authority directing it to perform a public duty imposed upon it by law.

Quo Warranto: The writ of quo warranto is used to judicially control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices under relevant statutory provisions.

Certiorari: A writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari can only be issued by the Supreme court under Art. 32 and a High court under Art. 226 to direct, inferior courts, tribunals or authorities to transmit to the court the record of proceedings disposed of or pending therein for scrutiny, and if necessary, for quashing the same.

Prohibition: A writ of prohibition is normally issued when inferior court or tribunal (a) proceeds to act without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction (b) proceeds to act in violation of rules of natural justice or (c) proceeds to act under a law which is itself ultra vires or unconstitutional or (d) proceeds to act in contravention of fundamental rights.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in December 1948 during the constituent assembly debates called this article as the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it.
In Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court observed that Article 32 provides a “guaranteed” remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
In Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur vs S S Shukla (1976), the Supreme Court had said that the citizen loses his right to approach the court under Article 32 during the emergency.

In civil or criminal matters, the first remedy available to an aggrieved person is that of trial courts, followed by an appeal in the High Court and then the Supreme Court.
When it comes to violation of fundamental rights, an individual can approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court directly under Article 32. Article 226, however, is not a fundamental right like Article 32.

There are several cases being observed under Article 32 by the Supreme Court.
The judges have discretion whether an intervention is warranted in a case.
The direction to approach the High Courts first has been a cause for delayed justice. Hence, a proper protocol should be interwoven to give a faster justice mechanism.

Today Current Affairs Upsc Exam Syllabus & Previous Yearpaper.