Comparative Writ Jurisdiction

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. Article 32 grants original jurisdiction, meaning one does not need to go through appeals to reach the SC for FR violations. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are coherent. Because High Courts ALSO have this power originally, the SC's power is concurrent, not exclusive. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are contradictory. Article 32 can ONLY be invoked for Fundamental Rights, not ordinary statutory or legal rights. The correct counterpart is that Art 32 is restricted to Part III enforcement.

The Assertion is correct. The High Court's writ jurisdiction is wider in scope. Reason (R1) is true and explains the assertion. The SC is limited solely to Fundamental Rights under Art 32, while HCs cover FRs and ordinary legal rights under Art 226. Reason (R2) is factually false. Article 32 is a basic feature of the Constitution; Parliament can empower *other* lower courts, but it cannot strip the SC of its inherent power. The correct counterpart is the inviolability of the SC's writ power.

Statement 1 is incorrect. Article 32(3) allows Parliament to extend this power. The correct counterpart is parliamentary authority to empower lower courts. Statement 2 is correct. Parliament can empower 'any other court' (like District Courts) to issue writs, without diminishing the SC's original powers. Statement 3 is incorrect. District Courts do not have inherent writ jurisdiction; Article 226 applies exclusively to High Courts.

Statement 1 is incorrect. Article 32 grants original jurisdiction; citizens can approach the SC directly. The correct counterpart is direct access to the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is correct. Both courts have original jurisdiction for FRs. Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 32 can ONLY be invoked if a Fundamental Right is directly infringed. The correct counterpart is the strict requirement of an FR violation. Statement 4 is correct. Art 32(3) allows Parliament to empower other courts. Thus, exactly two statements are correct.