With reference to Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which one of the following statements is not correct?

Introduction / Context:
Article 32 of the Constitution of India is often called the heart and soul of the Constitution because it gives individuals the right to move the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights. It is both a substantive fundamental right and a procedural remedy. Examination questions frequently ask about the exact scope of Article 32, especially whether it covers only fundamental rights or also ordinary legal rights. Understanding this distinction is crucial for answering this question correctly.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The question lists four statements about Article 32.
• They concern its nature as a remedy, its status as a fundamental right, the courts stance on delay, and whether it covers ordinary legal rights.
• We need to identify the single statement that is not correct in light of constitutional law and judicial interpretation.
• Standard polity texts and Supreme Court decisions guide this understanding.

Concept / Approach:
Article 32 gives the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights and empowers the Court to issue writs or directions for this purpose. It is explicitly placed in Part III and is itself described as a fundamental right. Courts have held that the Supreme Court generally should not reject a petition under Article 32 solely on the ground of delay when a fundamental right is at stake. However, the scope of Article 32 is limited to enforcement of fundamental rights and does not extend to ordinary legal rights that have no relation to fundamental rights. Ordinary rights may be enforced through other legal remedies, including Article 226 before High Courts.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Consider the statement that Article 32 provides a guaranteed remedy for enforcement of fundamental rights. This matches the language of the Constitution and is correct. Step 2: Examine the statement that Article 32 is itself a fundamental right. Since it is located in Part III and explicitly framed as a right to move the Supreme Court, this is also correct. Step 3: Look at the statement about the Supreme Court not refusing a writ petition under Article 32 merely on the ground of delay. Judicial practice supports the idea that when fundamental rights are involved, delay alone should not be an automatic bar, so this statement is substantially correct. Step 4: Analyse the statement that protection under Article 32 also applies to enforcement of ordinary legal rights that are not related to fundamental rights. This goes beyond the constitutional text, which clearly confines Article 32 to fundamental rights. Step 5: Conclude that the fourth statement is not correct because Article 32 does not give a general remedy for every legal right but only for fundamental rights. Step 6: Mark the statement about ordinary legal rights as the incorrect option.

Verification / Alternative check:
You can verify this by comparing Articles 32 and 226. Article 32 is specifically titled remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part, meaning Part III fundamental rights. Article 226, which empowers High Courts, is broader and allows enforcement of both fundamental rights and other legal rights. This distinction is highlighted in many judicial pronouncements and in standard commentary. Therefore, any statement that tries to convert Article 32 into a general remedy for all legal rights contradicts this clear constitutional design.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
The first statement is correct because Article 32 gives a guaranteed remedy and is enforceable in the Supreme Court. The second statement is correct as Article 32 is itself listed among fundamental rights. The third statement reflects a general judicial attitude that delay alone should not prevent the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32, although the Court may consider delay along with other factors. Since these three statements align with established constitutional law, they cannot be the answer to a question asking for the incorrect statement.

Common Pitfalls:
A major source of confusion is the similarity between Article 32 and Article 226. Some learners remember that High Courts can enforce ordinary rights and then mistakenly extend that principle to the Supreme Court under Article 32. Another error is forgetting that Article 32 is specifically linked to Part III rights, not to the entire range of statutory and common law rights. To avoid this, it is helpful to memorise a simple rule: Supreme Court under Article 32 is for fundamental rights only, while High Courts under Article 226 can handle both fundamental and other legal rights.

Final Answer:
The statement that is not correct is that protection under Article 32 also extends to enforcement of ordinary legal rights unconnected with fundamental rights, because Article 32 is confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights only.