https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168177 An externment law was upheld because it was directed at public safety and contained procedural safeguards suited to the exceptional measure. The order was treated as one of externment from Greater Bombay only, since the reference to removal outside the State was beyond the Commissioner's authority and was later regularised by the petitioner's request to stay at Kalyan and the police acceptance of that request. Section 27(1) was also held to impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of movement and residence under Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e), because it required notice, an opportunity to explain, and allowed cancellation, while the absence of cross-examination did not make the procedure unreasonable. The classification was held reasonable and not discriminatory under Article 14. en-us Wed, 07 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:56:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168177 An externment law was upheld because it was directed at public safety and contained procedural safeguards suited to the exceptional measure. The order was treated as one of externment from Greater Bombay only, since the reference to removal outside the State was beyond the Commissioner's authority and was later regularised by the petitioner's request to stay at Kalyan and the police acceptance of that request. Section 27(1) was also held to impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of movement and residence under Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e), because it required notice, an opportunity to explain, and allowed cancellation, while the absence of cross-examination did not make the procedure unreasonable. The classification was held reasonable and not discriminatory under Article 14. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168177