<?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>1954 (2) TMI 21 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287828</link>
    <description>Section 7 of the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 was held unconstitutional insofar as it authorised removal of a citizen of India on the basis of executive subjective satisfaction, including mere reasonable suspicion, without notice or an opportunity to meet the allegation. The Court treated the power as going beyond control of entry and movement and as effectively depriving citizens of the right to reside and settle in India under article 19(1)(e). It further held that the restriction could not be justified as reasonable under article 19(5) and that the absence of procedural safeguards rendered it arbitrary. The provision was void under article 13(1) to that extent, and removal orders against citizens were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2020 11:12:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (2) TMI 21 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287828</link>
      <description>Section 7 of the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 was held unconstitutional insofar as it authorised removal of a citizen of India on the basis of executive subjective satisfaction, including mere reasonable suspicion, without notice or an opportunity to meet the allegation. The Court treated the power as going beyond control of entry and movement and as effectively depriving citizens of the right to reside and settle in India under article 19(1)(e). It further held that the restriction could not be justified as reasonable under article 19(5) and that the absence of procedural safeguards rendered it arbitrary. The provision was void under article 13(1) to that extent, and removal orders against citizens were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>