https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180292 Sections 2(3) and 2(5) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004 were upheld as a valid repeal-and-savings mechanism and not an unconstitutional encroachment on judicial power. The Court held that Parliament could provide for deemed withdrawal of pending POTA proceedings, including cases where cognizance had already been taken, while preserving judicial review under Articles 226 and 136. It further held that the Review Committee's opinion that no prima facie case existed triggered withdrawal directly under the Repeal Act and did not require the additional procedure under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Writ review against the Committee's opinion remained available. en-us Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:33:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180292 Sections 2(3) and 2(5) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004 were upheld as a valid repeal-and-savings mechanism and not an unconstitutional encroachment on judicial power. The Court held that Parliament could provide for deemed withdrawal of pending POTA proceedings, including cases where cognizance had already been taken, while preserving judicial review under Articles 226 and 136. It further held that the Review Committee's opinion that no prima facie case existed triggered withdrawal directly under the Repeal Act and did not require the additional procedure under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Writ review against the Committee's opinion remained available. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180292