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 ‘for any other purpose’ 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. The Supreme Court can issue writs against a person or government throughout the territory of India whereas a high court can issue writs against a person residing or against a government or authority located within its territorial jurisdiction only or outside its territorial jurisdiction only if the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction. 15 Thus, the territorial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for the purpose of issuing writs is wider than that of a high court. 3. A remedy under Article 32 is in itself a Fundamental Right and hence, the Supreme Court may not refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction.