<?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>1974 (9) TMI 126 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196664</link>
    <description>Prisoners retain fundamental rights, including protection of personal liberty and Article 21, but lawful prison security measures are permissible where no infringement is shown. The presence of police guards outside the jail and on appurtenant vacant land was held not to interfere with lawful liberty or amount to unconstitutional restraint. Allegations of subhuman conditions and segregation in jail were not proved on the material before the Court, so no Article 21 violation was established. A high-voltage live-wire device fixed on the jail wall was also upheld because it operated as an escape-prevention measure and was not shown to cause unlawful intrusion or death.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:46:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (9) TMI 126 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196664</link>
      <description>Prisoners retain fundamental rights, including protection of personal liberty and Article 21, but lawful prison security measures are permissible where no infringement is shown. The presence of police guards outside the jail and on appurtenant vacant land was held not to interfere with lawful liberty or amount to unconstitutional restraint. Allegations of subhuman conditions and segregation in jail were not proved on the material before the Court, so no Article 21 violation was established. A high-voltage live-wire device fixed on the jail wall was also upheld because it operated as an escape-prevention measure and was not shown to cause unlawful intrusion or death.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>