Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not wider than that of the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 because the High Courts may exercise this power in relation to:

The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not wider than that of the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 because the High Courts may exercise this power in relation to: Correct Answer Fundamental and other legal rights

Related Questions

Consider the following statements:
1. The powers of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wider than those of Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. Both High Court and Supreme Court have concurrent power to enforce the fundamental rights.
3. It is mandatory for a petitioner first to approach the High Court instead of approaching the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Study the following statements and pick up the correct code:
Statement I: The power of High Court to issue writs under Article 226 is wider than the power of Supreme Court under Article 32.
Statement II: The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs only for violation of fundamental rights whereas the power of High Court under Article 226 can be invoked for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as legal rights.
"If the writ petition under Article 226 in a High Court is dismissed on the merits (i.e. dismissed in limine); but because of laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then dismissal of writ petition (under Article 226) would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32." This principle was laid down by Supreme Court in:
A seven member bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down clauses 2(d) of Article 323A and clause 3(d) of Article 323B of the Constitution relating to tribunals which excluded the jurisdiction of High Court and Supreme Court. The court held that power of judicial review over legislative action is vested in the High Court under Article 226 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32. This is an integral part of the basic structure of the constitution. Name the case:
Which of the following subject matters Articles Related to Supreme Court is correctly stated with their respective Article no.?  133. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases 132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters 134 A. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters 134 . Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court
Where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try the offence, the question shall be decided
1. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court
2. By the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the accused resides, carries on business or is engaged in a gainful employment
3. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court in consultation with the State Government concerned
4. If the courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by that court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced
Which of the above are correct?
Part XIV-A entitled "Tribunals" was inserted by the Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment Act, 1976. Clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and Clause (3)(d) of Article 323-B excluded jurisdiction of all courts, except that of the Supreme Court under Article 136. In which case were these clauses struck down as being unconstitutional to the extent they barred the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and that of the Supreme Court under Article 32?
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Assertion (A): A Habeas Corpus writ petition dismissed by the Supreme Court can be admitted by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
Reasons (R): In exercising writ jurisdiction the powers of the Supreme Court and High Court are concurrent
On Comparing Indian and American Supreme Courts which one of the following statements is NOT true? Indian Supreme Courts original jurisdiction is confined to federal cases. Indian Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction is confined to constitutional cases only. American Supreme Court has a very wide discretion to grant special leave to appeal in any matter against the judgement of any court or tribunal (except military). American Supreme Court has no advisory jurisdiction.