<?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>2001 (9) TMI 1122 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170038</link>
    <description>A person disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Legislature cannot be appointed or continue as Chief Minister under Article 164, because the constitutional requirement of eligibility is not cured by the six-month window for securing membership. Suspension of the execution of sentence pending appeal does not remove the conviction-based disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, since it suspends only the sentence, not the conviction or its statutory consequences. A writ of quo warranto is maintainable to test the lawful title to the office, and the appointment was held unconstitutional, subject to protection of past public acts under the de facto doctrine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 11:25:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 1122 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170038</link>
      <description>A person disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Legislature cannot be appointed or continue as Chief Minister under Article 164, because the constitutional requirement of eligibility is not cured by the six-month window for securing membership. Suspension of the execution of sentence pending appeal does not remove the conviction-based disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, since it suspends only the sentence, not the conviction or its statutory consequences. A writ of quo warranto is maintainable to test the lawful title to the office, and the appointment was held unconstitutional, subject to protection of past public acts under the de facto doctrine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>