https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188167 The Supreme Court held that the President's assent under Article 254(2) is limited to the proposal made by the State Government, emphasizing the active application of mind to repugnancy between State and Parliament laws. It ruled that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act does not violate Article 19(1)(f) rights and prevails over the Bombay Rent Act. Judicial review of the assent process is permissible to understand its scope. The Court dismissed appeals and upheld the validity of the P.P. Eviction Act, emphasizing the importance of clear specification of repugnancy for seeking assent. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188167 The Supreme Court held that the President's assent under Article 254(2) is limited to the proposal made by the State Government, emphasizing the active application of mind to repugnancy between State and Parliament laws. It ruled that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act does not violate Article 19(1)(f) rights and prevails over the Bombay Rent Act. Judicial review of the assent process is permissible to understand its scope. The Court dismissed appeals and upheld the validity of the P.P. Eviction Act, emphasizing the importance of clear specification of repugnancy for seeking assent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188167