Part V: The Union

The Union Judiciary

Article 139: Conferment on the Supreme Court of powers to issue certain writs

--- Original Article ---

Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court power to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for any purposes other than those mentioned in clause (2) of article 32.

Explanations

Article 139 of the Constitution of India empowers Parliament to extend the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond the scope of Article 32, enabling it to issue certain writs for purposes not covered under that article. This provision reinforces the role of the Supreme Court as a protector of legal rights by allowing it to intervene in various matters of public interest where constitutional or legal rights are in jeopardy.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

Powers of Supreme Court to Issue Writs

Article 139 grants Parliament the power to confer upon the Supreme Court the authority to issue specific writs for any purpose other than those mentioned in Article 32(2). These writs include:

• Habeas Corpus: A writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or court to secure their release unless lawful grounds for their detention are established.
• Mandamus: A writ directing a public authority to perform a statutory duty.
• Prohibition: A writ restraining a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law.
• Quo Warranto: A writ challenging the authority of a person holding a public office.
• Certiorari: A writ seeking judicial review of a lower court's decision by a superior court.

Amendments and Legislative History

Although there have been no specific amendments directly impacting Article 139, the scope and application of writ jurisdiction have evolved through various judicial decisions. Article 139 complements the powers conferred under Article 32, which allows the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights, while Article 139 extends the court's powers beyond fundamental rights.

Real-Life Examples

• Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: In cases involving the abuse of power by government authorities or public officials, the Supreme Court can issue writs under the authority conferred by Parliament, directing those officials to act within their legal bounds.
• Corporate Mismanagement: Writs of mandamus or certiorari have been employed to regulate or quash administrative decisions made by government bodies in corporate matters, thus safeguarding legal and constitutional principles.
• Public Office Challenges: Writs of quo warranto are often issued when a person unlawfully occupies a public office. For example, in various local government cases, such writs have been used to challenge appointments that violate legal norms.
• Judicial Oversight: In administrative matters involving state or central authorities, the writ of mandamus ensures that officials perform their legal duties, as in cases where public servants fail to provide services mandated by law.

Historical Significance

The inclusion of Article 139 signifies the framers' intent to make the Supreme Court a proactive guardian of the Constitution. By empowering Parliament to extend the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction through law, it allows the court to protect individual rights and ensure justice in matters beyond the scope of fundamental rights.

References

• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) – testing the power of habeas corpus.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – expanding the interpretation of writ jurisdiction.

Legislative History

Article 139 of the Indian Constitution, originally drafted and deliberated as article 115 of the Draft Constitution, was subsequently incorporated into the Indian Constitution on May 27, 1949.

Debates and Amendments

During the session, Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand proposed a verbal alteration to his amendment: substituting "for the words 'or orders in the nature of the writs' the words 'orders or writs, including writs in the nature'". This change aimed to align the phraseology with Article 25, which pertains to the enforcement of fundamental rights. Dr. Bakshi's amendment sought to broaden the scope, enabling Parliament to empower the Supreme Court to issue various writs, directions, or orders. This proposed amendment was adopted by the Constituent Assembly.

Subsequently, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar moved an amendment to delete the words and brackets "(which relates to the enforcement of fundamental rights)", as they were deemed superfluous. This amendment was also adopted by the Assembly.

Thus, the amended article, which now allows Parliament to confer broader writ-issuing powers on the Supreme Court, was adopted as part of the Constitution.