https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169279 An ordinance issued under Article 123 was treated as legislative in character and as "law" for Article 21, so it remains subject to constitutional rights limits. The Court also upheld the validity of section 1(2) of the Forty-Fourth Amendment Act, which permitted the Central Government to fix the commencement date, but declined to compel immediate commencement of section 3. On preventive detention, section 3 of the National Security Act was not struck down for vagueness, though the grounds relating to supplies and services essential to the community required prior public specification. The Advisory Board framework was upheld; no legal representation or cross-examination was required, but rebuttal evidence was allowed, together with humane detention safeguards. en-us Mon, 28 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169279 An ordinance issued under Article 123 was treated as legislative in character and as "law" for Article 21, so it remains subject to constitutional rights limits. The Court also upheld the validity of section 1(2) of the Forty-Fourth Amendment Act, which permitted the Central Government to fix the commencement date, but declined to compel immediate commencement of section 3. On preventive detention, section 3 of the National Security Act was not struck down for vagueness, though the grounds relating to supplies and services essential to the community required prior public specification. The Advisory Board framework was upheld; no legal representation or cross-examination was required, but rebuttal evidence was allowed, together with humane detention safeguards. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169279