<?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>1983 (10) TMI 285 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191894</link>
    <description>Constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26 extends only to essential religious practices, and public performance of Tandava dance was not established as an essential rite of Ananda Marga because the practice was shown to be of recent origin and unsupported by any authoritative text or tenet; the claimed religious right to perform it in public processions or public places was therefore rejected. Section 144 CrPC is a temporary emergency preventive power limited by statute, and successive orders in the same terms after expiry of earlier orders are not permissible; repetitive use of that power was therefore disapproved as an abuse of the provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 May 2017 17:06:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (10) TMI 285 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191894</link>
      <description>Constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26 extends only to essential religious practices, and public performance of Tandava dance was not established as an essential rite of Ananda Marga because the practice was shown to be of recent origin and unsupported by any authoritative text or tenet; the claimed religious right to perform it in public processions or public places was therefore rejected. Section 144 CrPC is a temporary emergency preventive power limited by statute, and successive orders in the same terms after expiry of earlier orders are not permissible; repetitive use of that power was therefore disapproved as an abuse of the provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191894</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>