Why does the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32 cover the entire territory of India, while a High Court's under Article 226 has territorial limits?

1. **Article 32** is itself a **Fundamental Right** — the Supreme Court's constitutional remedy of writ is available to anyone whose fundamental rights are infringed by State action, anywhere in India. 2. **Article 226** is a power vested in the High Courts, exercisable in relation to the territory over which the High Court has jurisdiction. A High Court can issue a writ against any person or authority only if (i) the person or authority is physically resident or located within its territory, or (ii) the cause of action arises within its territory. 3. The ICSI text records: 'while the Supreme Court can issue a writ against any person or Government within the territory of India, a High Court can…issue a writ only if such person or authority is physically resident or located within the territorial jurisdiction of the particular High Court'. 4. Options B, C and D state things that simply are not in the constitutional text. _Source: ICSI CS Executive — Lesson 2, 'Writ Jurisdiction', p. 71._