Abstract

The Constitution of India enables an aggrieved persons to approach the High Courts and Supreme Court under the aegis of Article 226 and article 32 respectively for the enforcement of rights. The judicial activism has given birth to the doctrine of existence of alternate remedy whereby the High Courts and Supreme Court can refuse to entertain a petition in cases where an alternate and equally effective alternate remedy exists. The paper tries to analyse the nature and scope of doctrine and its applicability in pretext of Indian Constitutional Setup. It then discusses the situation where alternate remedy bars relief under article 226 and 32 of the constitution and it also examines the exceptions to the application of the doctrine. It concludes by establishing the gaps that exist between theory and practice for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Keywords