<?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>1950 (5) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196859</link>
    <description>Preventive detention depends on the detaining authority&#039;s satisfaction on the materials before it, and a court will not substitute its own view for that of the authority. The order may still be invalidated if mala fides or abuse of power is proved, but the burden on the detenu is heavy. On the stated facts, surrounding circumstances raised suspicion, yet the materials did not establish an improper or indirect motive by the District Magistrate. Prevailing communal tension, the detainee&#039;s press conference, and the apprehended effect of his presence in Delhi were treated as sufficient to negate any finding of simulated or colourable satisfaction, so the detention was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:01:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (5) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196859</link>
      <description>Preventive detention depends on the detaining authority&#039;s satisfaction on the materials before it, and a court will not substitute its own view for that of the authority. The order may still be invalidated if mala fides or abuse of power is proved, but the burden on the detenu is heavy. On the stated facts, surrounding circumstances raised suspicion, yet the materials did not establish an improper or indirect motive by the District Magistrate. Prevailing communal tension, the detainee&#039;s press conference, and the apprehended effect of his presence in Delhi were treated as sufficient to negate any finding of simulated or colourable satisfaction, so the detention was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>