<?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>1963 (10) TMI 36 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191636</link>
    <description>Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 is analysed as allowing a Magistrate to act on information from any source, not only a special police officer, because the provision uses general language and the source of information is merely the trigger for inquiry. The article also notes that the section was upheld as consistent with Article 14 because it rests on a clear public-welfare policy, applies through procedural safeguards, and uses an intelligible classification linked to the statutory object. It further explains that the restrictions on movement and residence were treated as reasonable under Article 19(5) since they operate through judicial inquiry and are proportionate to the public health and morals objective.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (10) TMI 36 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191636</link>
      <description>Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 is analysed as allowing a Magistrate to act on information from any source, not only a special police officer, because the provision uses general language and the source of information is merely the trigger for inquiry. The article also notes that the section was upheld as consistent with Article 14 because it rests on a clear public-welfare policy, applies through procedural safeguards, and uses an intelligible classification linked to the statutory object. It further explains that the restrictions on movement and residence were treated as reasonable under Article 19(5) since they operate through judicial inquiry and are proportionate to the public health and morals objective.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>