<?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>2023 (3) TMI 1459 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312417</link>
    <description>Continued membership of an association lawfully declared unlawful under the statutory procedure is punishable under Section 10(a)(i) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; the earlier view that mere membership required proof of violence, incitement, or another overt act is incorrect. The provision is to be construed in light of India&#039;s constitutional scheme, where Article 19 freedoms are subject to express restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity, and foreign free speech precedents cannot control interpretation of a plain Indian statute. Reading down was therefore unwarranted in the absence of a constitutional challenge, and the contrary approach was disapproved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2024 19:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=743803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 1459 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312417</link>
      <description>Continued membership of an association lawfully declared unlawful under the statutory procedure is punishable under Section 10(a)(i) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; the earlier view that mere membership required proof of violence, incitement, or another overt act is incorrect. The provision is to be construed in light of India&#039;s constitutional scheme, where Article 19 freedoms are subject to express restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity, and foreign free speech precedents cannot control interpretation of a plain Indian statute. Reading down was therefore unwarranted in the absence of a constitutional challenge, and the contrary approach was disapproved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312417</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>