Articles 32 and 226

In one line

MU asks about "constitutional remedies provided under the Constitution of India for the protection of environment", and the answer is two remedies that look similar, differ in three important ways, and are supported by three further provisions that are what actually make an Indian environmental order work.

Article 32

"32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part. (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part. ... (4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution."

Three things to notice.

Article 32 is itself a fundamental right. It sits in Part III. The right to move the Supreme Court is guaranteed, so the Court cannot decline to entertain a petition that discloses a violation of a fundamental right on the ground that another remedy exists.

It is confined to Part III. A petition under Article 32 lies only for the enforcement of a fundamental right. That is why the Article 21 chapter matters so much: without the environmental reading of Article 21 there would be no route into the Supreme Court at all.

The writs are named but the power is not confined to them. The clause says "directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of" the five named forms. That word "including" is the textual basis of the continuing mandamus and of every unnamed direction an Indian court has made in an environmental case.

Article 226

"226. (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) ... may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises".

The three differences

One: what may be enforced

Article 32 is confined to fundamental rights. Article 226 is not. The High Court's power extends to the enforcement of Part III rights "and for any other purpose". So a High Court may issue a writ to enforce a statutory duty, a licence condition, a development plan or an order of a Board, none of which is a fundamental right.