*Tilokchand Motichand v. H.P. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898* clarified the role of the Limitation Act in writ proceedings. Which two propositions emerge from the case?

1. ***Tilokchand Motichand v. H.P. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898*** clarified the position on Limitation and Constitutional remedies. 2. **First proposition**: 'The State cannot place any hindrance by prescribing a period of limitation in the way of an aggrieved person seeking to approach the Supreme Court of India under Article 32… To put curbs in the way of enforcement of Fundamental Rights through legislative action might well be questioned under Article 13(2) of the Constitution.' 3. **Second proposition**: 'The Limitation Act does not in terms apply to a proceeding under Article 32 or Article 226… But the Courts act on the analogy of the statute of limitation and refuse relief if the delay is more than the statutory period of limitation.' If the right is extinguished under Section 27, there is no subsisting right. 4. So writ jurisdiction is unconstrained by statutory limitation but constrained by the court's own analogy and public policy. _Source: ICSI CS Executive — Lesson 7, 'Limitation and Writs under the Constitution', p. 159._