https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199817 Article 226 was treated as conferring broad constitutional power to grant protective relief against enforcement of an administrative externment order, and that power was not confined by older technical limits on prerogative writs. The externment provision was considered an unreasonable restriction on freedom of movement and residence because it permitted action without hearing, without disclosure of grounds, and without adequate safeguards against arbitrariness. On that reasoning, the provision was held void to that extent under Article 13(1), while the dissent argued that the validity of the restriction should be judged by the substance of the restriction itself, not by possible procedural deficiencies. en-us Fri, 14 Apr 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:17:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199817 Article 226 was treated as conferring broad constitutional power to grant protective relief against enforcement of an administrative externment order, and that power was not confined by older technical limits on prerogative writs. The externment provision was considered an unreasonable restriction on freedom of movement and residence because it permitted action without hearing, without disclosure of grounds, and without adequate safeguards against arbitrariness. On that reasoning, the provision was held void to that extent under Article 13(1), while the dissent argued that the validity of the restriction should be judged by the substance of the restriction itself, not by possible procedural deficiencies. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Apr 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199817