<?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>2006 (1) TMI 604 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174498</link>
    <description>A Legislative Assembly is deemed duly constituted on publication of election results, so it may be dissolved before its first meeting under Article 174(2)(b). The Court held that a proclamation under Article 356 is judicially reviewable where it rests on mala fide, extraneous, or irrelevant material, and found the Bihar dissolution unconstitutional because the Governor acted on suspicion of horse-trading rather than a bona fide majority claim. Although invalidity could justify restoration, status quo ante was not ordered because the election process had substantially progressed. The Governor retained personal immunity under Article 361, but that immunity did not bar scrutiny of the proclamation&#039;s validity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 604 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174498</link>
      <description>A Legislative Assembly is deemed duly constituted on publication of election results, so it may be dissolved before its first meeting under Article 174(2)(b). The Court held that a proclamation under Article 356 is judicially reviewable where it rests on mala fide, extraneous, or irrelevant material, and found the Bihar dissolution unconstitutional because the Governor acted on suspicion of horse-trading rather than a bona fide majority claim. Although invalidity could justify restoration, status quo ante was not ordered because the election process had substantially progressed. The Governor retained personal immunity under Article 361, but that immunity did not bar scrutiny of the proclamation&#039;s validity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174498</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>