https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175886 A Commission of Inquiry under the Act was held to be a constitutionally permissible fact-finding mechanism for any definite matter of public importance, including allegations of corruption, nepotism, favouritism or misuse of power against State Ministers. The Union's notification was sustained because the Commission did not exercise disciplinary or supervisory control over the State executive. Section 3(1) was upheld as constitutional since it did not alter the federal scheme or ministerial responsibility and was supported by Parliament's legislative competence. The proviso barring a second inquiry was not triggered because the Union and State notifications covered substantially different subject-matters. en-us Tue, 08 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2015 12:23:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175886 A Commission of Inquiry under the Act was held to be a constitutionally permissible fact-finding mechanism for any definite matter of public importance, including allegations of corruption, nepotism, favouritism or misuse of power against State Ministers. The Union's notification was sustained because the Commission did not exercise disciplinary or supervisory control over the State executive. Section 3(1) was upheld as constitutional since it did not alter the federal scheme or ministerial responsibility and was supported by Parliament's legislative competence. The proviso barring a second inquiry was not triggered because the Union and State notifications covered substantially different subject-matters. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175886