https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158395 Rule 12 of Order XXXV was held invalid insofar as it authorised security for costs in Article 32 proceedings, because a condition at the threshold that may deter or obstruct enforcement of the fundamental right to move the Court impermissibly burdens that right. The Court held that delegated rule-making under Article 145 and the power to do complete justice under Article 142(1) cannot support a rule inconsistent with Part III. Procedural rules may regulate orderly presentation, but not impose a precondition that substantially impairs access to constitutional remedies. Shah, J. dissented, stating that such an order could be made in a proper case under Article 142 and that the rule was valid. en-us Tue, 06 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158395 Rule 12 of Order XXXV was held invalid insofar as it authorised security for costs in Article 32 proceedings, because a condition at the threshold that may deter or obstruct enforcement of the fundamental right to move the Court impermissibly burdens that right. The Court held that delegated rule-making under Article 145 and the power to do complete justice under Article 142(1) cannot support a rule inconsistent with Part III. Procedural rules may regulate orderly presentation, but not impose a precondition that substantially impairs access to constitutional remedies. Shah, J. dissented, stating that such an order could be made in a proper case under Article 142 and that the rule was valid. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158395