<?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>1994 (3) TMI 398 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275470</link>
    <description>The proviso to Section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act permits immediate effect to an unlawful association notification only where the Government records distinct written reasons showing urgency beyond the grounds for the declaration under Section 3(1). Because immediate effect curtails Article 19(1)(c) rights, it must satisfy the requirement of a reasonable restriction under Article 19(4). On the facts, the notification relied on the same grounds as the declaration itself, without separate urgency reasons; stale incidents and general allegations were insufficient, and file notes alone could not substitute for reasons communicated to the affected association. The immediate-effect portion was therefore struck down.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:41:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537026" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 398 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275470</link>
      <description>The proviso to Section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act permits immediate effect to an unlawful association notification only where the Government records distinct written reasons showing urgency beyond the grounds for the declaration under Section 3(1). Because immediate effect curtails Article 19(1)(c) rights, it must satisfy the requirement of a reasonable restriction under Article 19(4). On the facts, the notification relied on the same grounds as the declaration itself, without separate urgency reasons; stale incidents and general allegations were insufficient, and file notes alone could not substitute for reasons communicated to the affected association. The immediate-effect portion was therefore struck down.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>