For the enforcement and protection of Fundamental Rights in India, which of the following can a court issue under its constitutional powers?

Introduction / Context:
This question is about the legal remedies available for enforcing Fundamental Rights in India. Part III of the Constitution guarantees these rights, and Article 32 and Article 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to issue specific legal instruments to protect them. Knowing the name of these instruments and distinguishing them from other legal or executive measures is a key part of Indian polity.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The focus is on enforcement of Fundamental Rights by courts.
• Options include decree, ordinance, notification, writ and money bill.
• We assume familiarity with basic constitutional provisions about remedies and the jurisdiction of higher courts.

Concept / Approach:
Article 32 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Similarly, Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but also for other legal rights. Typical writs include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. Decrees, ordinances, notifications and money bills are different legal or legislative instruments and are not specifically remedies for protecting Fundamental Rights.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1. Understand that the question asks specifically about enforcement of Fundamental Rights, which leads you to think of Articles 32 and 226. 2. Recall that these Articles mention the power of courts to issue writs such as habeas corpus and mandamus. 3. Decrees are final orders passed by civil courts in suits, not special constitutional remedies for rights. 4. Ordinances are temporary laws issued by the President or Governors, and notifications are administrative communications. 5. Therefore, the correct constitutional instrument for enforcing Fundamental Rights is a writ.

Verification / Alternative check:
Polity textbooks emphasise Dr B. R. Ambedkar's description of Article 32 as the very soul of the Constitution because it allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights through writs. High Courts have similar powers under Article 226. None of the other terminologies listed in the options are associated with this special jurisdiction. This confirms that writ is the correct answer.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• A decree: It is a formal expression of adjudication in a civil suit, not a special constitutional remedy for Fundamental Rights.
• An ordinance: A temporary law promulgated by the President or a Governor when the legislature is not in session; it does not enforce Fundamental Rights by itself.
• A notification: An administrative tool used by the government to communicate decisions; it is not a judicial remedy.
• A money bill: A type of bill dealing with financial matters, introduced in the legislature, unrelated to court enforcement of rights.

Common Pitfalls:
Some candidates confuse general legal terms like decree or notification with constitutional remedies. Another mistake is to focus on ordinances as powerful laws and think they might somehow be used to protect rights. Remember that enforcement of Fundamental Rights is primarily a judicial function using writ jurisdiction. Keeping this distinction clear between judicial remedies and legislative or executive instruments will help answer many similar questions correctly.

Final Answer:
For enforcing and protecting Fundamental Rights, a court in India can issue a writ under its constitutional powers.