<?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>2000 (1) TMI 1015 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197650</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld regulations authorising the Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education to cancel examinations on reports of mass copying. The Board, as an expert educational body under the parent statute, could frame regulations, delegate functions, and confer emergency powers on its head. That delegation was valid because immediate action against mass malpractice had a rational nexus with preserving examination integrity and academic discipline. The Court held that judicial interference was unwarranted absent manifest illegality or arbitrariness, and the High Court erred in striking down the notifications and substituting its own scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:49:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 1015 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197650</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld regulations authorising the Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education to cancel examinations on reports of mass copying. The Board, as an expert educational body under the parent statute, could frame regulations, delegate functions, and confer emergency powers on its head. That delegation was valid because immediate action against mass malpractice had a rational nexus with preserving examination integrity and academic discipline. The Court held that judicial interference was unwarranted absent manifest illegality or arbitrariness, and the High Court erred in striking down the notifications and substituting its own scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>