Q. Consider the following statements regarding the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court:
1. High Courts have more discretion in the exercise of writ jurisdiction as compared to the Supreme Court.
2. The Supreme Court has wider territorial jurisdiction than the High Courts for the purpose of issuing writs.
3. Parliament cannot curtail the writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court, but it can curtail the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts.
How many of the above given statements are correct?
Exp) Option b is the correct answer.
Statement 1 is correct: Article 32 in itself is a Fundamental right. Hence, the remedies (i.e., writs) contained in Article 32 may not be refused by the Supreme Court. However, the remedy under Article 226 is discretionary. So, a High Court can refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Hence, High Courts have more discretion regarding issuance of writs
Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court is empowered to issue writs against a person/ government throughout the territory of India. On the other hand, High Court can issue writs against a person/ government within its territorial jurisdiction. It can issue writ outside its territorial jurisdiction only if the cause of action arises in its territorial jurisdiction.
Statement 3 is incorrect: In the Chandra Kumar Case (1997), the Supreme Court held that the writ jurisdiction of both the High Courts and the Supreme Court is a part of basic structure of the constitution. Hence, it cannot be taken away even by the way of the Constitutional Amendment.
