Article 32 maintainability is not barred by alternative remedies, disputed facts, or concurrent private claims when statute itself infringes rights.

Article 32 remains a guaranteed fundamental right, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar the Court's jurisdiction. Where the impugned legislation is said to be the direct source of the alleged infringement, the grievance is treated as one against State action under Article 12 even if private parties also rely on the statute. A law can violate fundamental rights by its own force without any further executive act, so constitutional relief may be sought immediately. The jurisdiction is wide enough to include declaratory and consequential relief, and disputed questions of fact do not by themselves justify refusal to entertain the petitions. The preliminary objections to maintainability were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India were maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy, the fact that the grievance was asserted against private respondents as well as the State, the absence of any further overt act by the State, the request for declaratory relief, and the presence of disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The right to move the Court under Article 32 is itself a guaranteed fundamental right, and the existence of another remedy does not, by itself, bar that jurisdiction. Where the impugned legislation is alleged to be the direct source of the infringement, the grievance is against State action within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, even if private parties assert rights under the statute. A law may infringe fundamental rights by its own force without any further executive act, and in such a case the affected party may seek constitutional relief immediately. The jurisdiction under Article 32 is wide enough to grant declaratory and consequential relief where appropriate, and the Court will not decline to entertain the petition merely because facts are disputed; such issues may be examined on affidavit or by suitable procedure.

Conclusion: The preliminary objections to maintainability were rejected and the petitions were held entertainable under Article 32.

---