<?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 (7) TMI 422 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169996</link>
    <description>Article 324 permits a multi-member Election Commission, with the President empowered to fix the number of additional Election Commissioners from time to time. Parliament may validly enact ancillary provisions governing the Commission&#039;s internal procedure, including unanimous regulation of business and, failing unanimity, decision by majority, because that scheme is consistent with a collegial constitutional body. The challenged notifications and appointments were also upheld: no mala fides were shown, and the expansion of the Commission was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The constitutional challenge to the ordinance, the enacted provisions, and the consequential appointments was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 17:41:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 422 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169996</link>
      <description>Article 324 permits a multi-member Election Commission, with the President empowered to fix the number of additional Election Commissioners from time to time. Parliament may validly enact ancillary provisions governing the Commission&#039;s internal procedure, including unanimous regulation of business and, failing unanimity, decision by majority, because that scheme is consistent with a collegial constitutional body. The challenged notifications and appointments were also upheld: no mala fides were shown, and the expansion of the Commission was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The constitutional challenge to the ordinance, the enacted provisions, and the consequential appointments was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>