Article 32 is the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court increasingly discourages its routine invocation. Critically examine the balance between access to justice and judicial economy.

Article 32 is itself a fundamental right in Part III. It guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court (SC) to enforce fundamental rights [1]. In October 2026 the SC ordered West Bengal to give MP Mahua Moitra a circuit-house room on a day's notice. In the same case it said such disputes should not need an Article 32 petition [2]. The SC's caution is justified, but it needs clearer rules.

Access to justice: why open entry matters

• Guaranteed remedy: the right cannot be suspended except as the Constitution provides (Art. 32(4)) [1]. Turning petitioners away weakens a right, not just a procedure.
• Wide powers: the SC may issue "directions or orders or writs" (Art. 32(2)) [1]. This is the basis of direct relief for people who cannot afford to litigate in stages.
• Cost of late refusal: in one case the SC declined a petition only after it had been pending "for sometime". It then asked the High Court (HC) to decide within five months [3]. A late refusal adds to the litigant's delay.

Judicial economy: why the SC filters

• A better forum exists: under Article 226, HCs can issue writs for fundamental rights "and for any other purpose" [1]. A grievance about a room booking does not have to be framed as a fundamental right.
• Closer to the facts: the HC knows the district and the State's protocol rules better. An appeal to the SC is still available.
• Consistent practice: the SC refused Article 32 petitions and sent petitioners to HCs in October 2025 [4] and February 2026 [3].
• Lost hearing time: time spent on a 3–4-day notice period [2] is time lost for cases that only the SC can decide.

Critical appraisal

• Mixed signals: the Moitra Bench criticised the choice of forum but still granted relief [2]. Future litigants may also come straight to the SC.
• Unreasoned refusals: one-line "not inclined to entertain" orders [4] give no criteria for when Article 32 is appropriate.
• A better model: transferring a case to the HC under Article 226 [3] keeps the petitioner's case alive. Dismissal makes them start again.

The real question is not access versus efficiency but which court should hear a case first. The way forward has three parts. The SC should publish screening criteria, such as personal liberty, urgency and national importance. It should transfer cases to HCs rather than dismiss them. HCs should be strengthened. Together these would keep Article 32 the "heart and soul" that Ambedkar described and support SDG 16.3's goal of equal access to justice.