https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302501 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. en-us Wed, 04 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 May 2022 11:02:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302501 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302501