<?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>1995 (4) TMI 324 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461303</link>
    <description>An order of dismissal under Article 311(2)(c) is subject to limited judicial review where mala fides or wholly extraneous or irrelevant considerations are alleged, because the President&#039;s or Governor&#039;s satisfaction on security grounds is not beyond scrutiny. Effective review requires the Government to place the relevant material before the Court or Tribunal, except where a valid privilege claim under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act is established. Even if documents are withheld, the nature of the alleged activities must still be disclosed so the nexus with the security of the State can be tested. The text notes that the privilege claim and Tribunal findings were upheld, and no interference was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:26:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=809783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 324 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461303</link>
      <description>An order of dismissal under Article 311(2)(c) is subject to limited judicial review where mala fides or wholly extraneous or irrelevant considerations are alleged, because the President&#039;s or Governor&#039;s satisfaction on security grounds is not beyond scrutiny. Effective review requires the Government to place the relevant material before the Court or Tribunal, except where a valid privilege claim under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act is established. Even if documents are withheld, the nature of the alleged activities must still be disclosed so the nexus with the security of the State can be tested. The text notes that the privilege claim and Tribunal findings were upheld, and no interference was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>