https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190471 Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was treated as within Union legislative competence and as consistent with Articles 14, 21 and 22 because preventive detention connected with foreigners and foreign affairs fell within the Union List and the classification of foreigners was held reasonable. Detention of a foreigner to make arrangements for expulsion was held lawful and preventive in character, including anticipation of the Central Government's expulsion order where needed to ensure effective execution. The allegation of mala fides failed because expulsion and extradition were distinct processes, and the detention was not shown to be used to secure extradition instead of expulsion. en-us Wed, 23 Feb 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:48:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190471 Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was treated as within Union legislative competence and as consistent with Articles 14, 21 and 22 because preventive detention connected with foreigners and foreign affairs fell within the Union List and the classification of foreigners was held reasonable. Detention of a foreigner to make arrangements for expulsion was held lawful and preventive in character, including anticipation of the Central Government's expulsion order where needed to ensure effective execution. The allegation of mala fides failed because expulsion and extradition were distinct processes, and the detention was not shown to be used to secure extradition instead of expulsion. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Feb 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190471