<?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>1988 (8) TMI 416 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169327</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the writ application challenging a detention order issued under the National Security Act, 1980. The Court upheld the detention order, emphasizing that even if not all incidents cited were directly related to public order disturbances, one incident alone justified the detention. The Court rejected claims of undue delay in passing the order and dismissed allegations that the order was aimed at preventing the petitioner from obtaining bail in a criminal case. Additionally, the Court ruled that decisions on detention should be made based on individual assessments rather than joint criminal charges. The Court found no substance in the petitioner&#039;s arguments and upheld the detention order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2015 10:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 416 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169327</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the writ application challenging a detention order issued under the National Security Act, 1980. The Court upheld the detention order, emphasizing that even if not all incidents cited were directly related to public order disturbances, one incident alone justified the detention. The Court rejected claims of undue delay in passing the order and dismissed allegations that the order was aimed at preventing the petitioner from obtaining bail in a criminal case. Additionally, the Court ruled that decisions on detention should be made based on individual assessments rather than joint criminal charges. The Court found no substance in the petitioner&#039;s arguments and upheld the detention order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>