Report No. 58
Disputed questions of fact
Petitions under Article 32
4.1.A. Article 32 of the Constitution reads as follows:-
"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 rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this Article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution".
4.2. & 4.3. Question 3 in our Questionnaire reads thus-
"3. (a) Do you favour the view that in petitions to the Supreme Court under Article 32, disputed questions of fact should not be gone into?
(b) If so, what course would you suggest for the trial of issues of fact in such petitions?
(c) If not, do you think that evidence should be recorded in a petition under Article 32 in the same manner as in a suit?"