https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257177 The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Regulation 114 and Rule 7 insofar as they restricted candidature for Regional Council elections to Fellow Members. It held that the right to contest an election is a statutory right that may be regulated by the governing Act, rules and regulations, and that Associate Members and Fellow Members form distinct classes under the statutory scheme. The challenged restriction was treated as consistent with the legislative preference for election to the Council from among Fellows, did not create an unreasonable or hostile classification, and was protected by the presumption of constitutionality. The Court also noted that internal eligibility conditions in association governance are ordinarily not interfered with. The writ petition therefore failed on merits. en-us Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257177 The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Regulation 114 and Rule 7 insofar as they restricted candidature for Regional Council elections to Fellow Members. It held that the right to contest an election is a statutory right that may be regulated by the governing Act, rules and regulations, and that Associate Members and Fellow Members form distinct classes under the statutory scheme. The challenged restriction was treated as consistent with the legislative preference for election to the Council from among Fellows, did not create an unreasonable or hostile classification, and was protected by the presumption of constitutionality. The Court also noted that internal eligibility conditions in association governance are ordinarily not interfered with. The writ petition therefore failed on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257177