Remains of the day: Exploring some ideas from ‘Article 32: History and the Future’

A musing on some of the ideas and questions emanating from the programme on Article 32 organised by The Leaflet and the Society for Constitution and Social Democracy.

—

ON April 15, The Leaflet, in association with the Society for Constitution and Social Democracy, organised a programme on 'Article 32: History and the Future' to celebrate the 134th anniversary of B.R. Ambedkar.

Two Supreme Court judges, Justices B.R. Gavai and Abhay S. Oka, delivered lectures at the event, held at the Indian Society of International Law, New Delhi.

There was also a question-answer session towards the end of the event.

All in all, the lectures by the judges and the questions by the audience raised some important points, some of which deserve a more detailed analysis.

The concept note circulated by senior advocates Indira Jaising and Anand Grover, the co-founders of The Leaflet raised three questions for discussion namely

1. Under what circumstances does the Supreme Court entertain Article 32 petitions and when not?
2. What are the differences between jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 
3. What explains the fact that the Supreme Court has entertained Article 32 petitions in some cases and not in other cases?