<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1952 (3) TMI 34 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168220</link>
    <description>Section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, as amended in Madras, was held to impose an unreasonable restriction on the right to form associations under article 19(1)(c). The Court found that allowing the executive to declare an association unlawful on specified grounds, without judicial scrutiny of the underlying facts, was excessive. The safeguards of Gazette notification, representation to Government, and reference to an Advisory Board were treated as inadequate because the affected association and its office-bearers were not effectively informed and faced penal consequences for membership. The provision was therefore unconstitutional and void.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (3) TMI 34 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168220</link>
      <description>Section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, as amended in Madras, was held to impose an unreasonable restriction on the right to form associations under article 19(1)(c). The Court found that allowing the executive to declare an association unlawful on specified grounds, without judicial scrutiny of the underlying facts, was excessive. The safeguards of Gazette notification, representation to Government, and reference to an Advisory Board were treated as inadequate because the affected association and its office-bearers were not effectively informed and faced penal consequences for membership. The provision was therefore unconstitutional and void.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>