https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258272 The Constitution does not permit an implied disqualification for appointment as Minister merely because charges have been framed for serious, heinous or corruption-related offences. Articles 75(1) and 164(1), read with the existing disqualification scheme for legislators, were not expanded by implication, since pendency of investigation or framing of charge does not override the presumption of innocence. The Court also declined to frame binding guidelines restricting such appointments, holding that doing so would amount to judicial legislation. It nevertheless stressed constitutional morality, good governance and constitutional trust, and treated restraint by the Prime Minister or Chief Minister as a constitutional expectation rather than a legal prohibition. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258272 The Constitution does not permit an implied disqualification for appointment as Minister merely because charges have been framed for serious, heinous or corruption-related offences. Articles 75(1) and 164(1), read with the existing disqualification scheme for legislators, were not expanded by implication, since pendency of investigation or framing of charge does not override the presumption of innocence. The Court also declined to frame binding guidelines restricting such appointments, holding that doing so would amount to judicial legislation. It nevertheless stressed constitutional morality, good governance and constitutional trust, and treated restraint by the Prime Minister or Chief Minister as a constitutional expectation rather than a legal prohibition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258272