<?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>1981 (12) TMI 166 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169279</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the President&#039;s ordinance-making power, affirming that an ordinance has the same legal force as an Act of Parliament. The National Security Act, 1980 was deemed constitutional, permitting preventive detention within constitutional limits. While acknowledging the vagueness of certain NSA provisions, the Court ruled that they were not unconstitutional except for one clause requiring clear definition. The Court held that detenus are not entitled to legal representation or cross-examination before Advisory Boards but emphasized the need for fair procedures. Additionally, the Court mandated humane conditions of detention, including proximity to home, notification of detention, and access to personal necessities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (12) TMI 166 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169279</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the President&#039;s ordinance-making power, affirming that an ordinance has the same legal force as an Act of Parliament. The National Security Act, 1980 was deemed constitutional, permitting preventive detention within constitutional limits. While acknowledging the vagueness of certain NSA provisions, the Court ruled that they were not unconstitutional except for one clause requiring clear definition. The Court held that detenus are not entitled to legal representation or cross-examination before Advisory Boards but emphasized the need for fair procedures. Additionally, the Court mandated humane conditions of detention, including proximity to home, notification of detention, and access to personal necessities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>