Explanation:

The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court differs from that of a high court in three respects:

1. The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights whereas a high court can issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose. The expression Ôfor any other purposeÕ refers to the enforcement of an ordinary legal right. Thus, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in this respect, is narrower than that of high court.
2. A remedy under Article 32 is in itself a Fundamental Right and hence, the Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, a remedy under Article 226 is discretionary and hence, a high court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Article 32 does not merely confer power on the Supreme Court as Article 226 does on a high court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or other rights as part of its general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is thus constituted as a defender and guarantor of the fundamental rights.