During the drafting of Indian Constitution, the father of the Indian Constitution, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, categorically said that Article 32 is the sole and heart of the Indian Constitution. It states that it is a fundamental right available to any person to directly approach the Supreme Court of India (SCI) for the enforcement of her/his fundamental rights. Article 32 is itself part of fundamental rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution. However, in the entire Constitutional scheme, nowhere is it mentioned, explicitly or implicitly, that an aggrieved person must first approach the High Court and, thereafter, the SCI. Recently, however, the SCI has developed a new approach to not allowing writ petitions directly under Article 32 and directs petitioners to go to the high court.

Judicial Discourse on Go to High Court

Numerous cases support this new trend. On 2 April 2025, the SCI directed the petitioner who approached the court against the government’s control of the Hindu temples in the states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Puducherry, to approach High Courts first. On 8 March 2025, petitions were filed before the SCI to challenge the decision of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana governments to allow ‘early leaves for Muslims during Ramzan’. The apex court directed the petitioner to go to the high court. On 7 February 2025, against contempt of SCI’s order to “restrain demolition actions across the country without prior notice and opportunity of hearing”, the apex court disposed of the contempt petition against the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government by stating that go to High Court.  On 12 July 2024, against the Hathras Stampede in which 121 people died in UP, the SCI dismissed the PIL and directed the petitioner to approach the High Court. The then CJI Chandrachud stated that “Everything does not have to come in a PIL under Article 32; you file in the High Court.” These are part of a wider trend such as orders issued on (3 February 2025), (12 July 2024), (29 November 2024), (4 February 2024),  and (17 December 2019).

Way forward

While the SCI has developed jurisprudence on ‘access to justice’ on hand, this new approach creates a hurdle to achieving access to justice by restricting individuals ability to directly approach the apex court. Besides the enforcement of fundamental rights, constitutional litigations have various other costs that are generally not considered in the legal profession and need to be addressed. The SCI is undermining the petitioner’s financial, emotional, and psychological aspects by rejecting writ petitions. In other words, the SCI is compromising access to justice and its core orientation, the guardian of fundamental rights.

It is a fact that the Indian judiciary has a huge number of case pendency. Nevertheless, it would not be wise to breach its fundamental obligation to entertain writs under Article 32. Besides this, the similar constitutional remedy is also available under Article 226, where a person can reach the respective High Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights and any other rights. However, this remedy is available only for the State, not for the nation.

Neither Article 32 nor Article 226 prescribes any hierarchy and superiority that fulfils SCI’s desire to reject the writ petition and direct the petitioner to go to the High Courts. There is no quantifiable data available, nor has any research explicitly stated that the rejection of writs under Article 32 is enhancing constitutional democracy. Therefore, this approach has been shifting SCI’s image from a guardian/protector of fundamental rights to an elite and hierarchical institution that is not concerned with access to justice.