https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292808 Governor's satisfaction under ordinance-making power was treated as non-justiciable, so the challenge to the promulgation failed. Applying the pith and substance doctrine, the ordinance was held to relate primarily to public order and preventive detention, matters within provincial competence; incidental overlap with criminal procedure did not create invalidity. The Court also found no real repugnancy with the Criminal Procedure Code, as the Code was not exhaustive and special procedures could be prescribed by special law. The challenged proviso, repeal, and saving provisions were either harmless or severable, so they did not invalidate the ordinance as a whole. The constitutional challenges were rejected and the detention orders were sustained. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2021 17:10:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292808 Governor's satisfaction under ordinance-making power was treated as non-justiciable, so the challenge to the promulgation failed. Applying the pith and substance doctrine, the ordinance was held to relate primarily to public order and preventive detention, matters within provincial competence; incidental overlap with criminal procedure did not create invalidity. The Court also found no real repugnancy with the Criminal Procedure Code, as the Code was not exhaustive and special procedures could be prescribed by special law. The challenged proviso, repeal, and saving provisions were either harmless or severable, so they did not invalidate the ordinance as a whole. The constitutional challenges were rejected and the detention orders were sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 Nov 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292808