Article 32 has been called the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution, yet courts increasingly discourage its invocation for issues with alternate remedies. Discuss with reference to recent Supreme Court orders.

Q. Article 32 has been called the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution, yet courts increasingly discourage its invocation for issues with alternate remedies. Discuss with reference to recent Supreme Court orders. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 32, placed in Part III, is itself a fundamental right and was described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution [1]. Yet recent Supreme Court orders show the Court guarding this extraordinary remedy against routine invocation where ordinary legal channels already exist.

Why Article 32 remains foundational - It makes the right to constitutional remedies a fundamental right, so the guarantee of Part III is not merely declaratory [1]. - The Supreme Court is the guaranteed protector of fundamental rights, empowered to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari [1]. - It cannot be suspended except as provided by the Constitution, giving it exceptional constitutional weight [1].

Why courts increasingly discourage its invocation - In July 2026, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe refused to entertain a writ petition seeking removal of allegedly derogatory podcast and social media content, cautioning that Article 32 cannot become "a ruse to politicise issues" [2]. - The Bench directed the petitioner to file a police complaint and pursue remedies under the IT Rules instead [2]. - The concern is twofold: docket congestion in a court already burdened with pendency, and the use of writ jurisdiction for publicity or political point-scoring rather than genuine rights violations [2].

The alternate remedies that exist - Article 226: High Courts' writ jurisdiction, wider in scope, covering both fundamental and legal rights [1]. - IT Rules, 2021: intermediary due diligence, a grievance officer and the Grievance Appellate Committee for objectionable online content [3]. - Ordinary criminal law and police machinery for speech offending religious sentiment.

Judicial gatekeeping thus does not dilute Article 32; it preserves its potency by reserving it for genuine constitutional wrongs. The way forward lies in strengthening first-tier remedies — responsive policing and a well-staffed grievance architecture — so that citizens reach the Supreme Court as a court of last resort, not first instance, keeping the "heart and soul" of the Constitution beating strongly.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India (Part III, Articles 32 and 226) — India Code, Government of India — Article 32 as a fundamental right, writ powers, Article 226 as alternate remedy 2. SC refuses to entertain plea to curb social media content — The Hindu, 16 July 2026 — July 2026 refusal, Bench composition, "politicise" observation, direction to approach police/IT Rules 3. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 — MeitY — grievance officer and Grievance Appellate Committee mechanism for online content