<?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>2015 (12) TMI 1685 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192732</link>
    <description>The right to vote and the right to contest Panchayat elections are constitutional rights under Part IX, while Article 243F permits the State Legislature to prescribe disqualifications for membership. The challenged requirements of minimum educational qualification and possession of a functional toilet were upheld because each had a rational nexus with the objectives of effective local self-government, sanitation, and civic responsibility, and each rested on an intelligible differentia. The Article 14 challenge failed because the provisions were not shown to suffer from any concrete constitutional infirmity. The impugned Haryana Panchayati Raj disqualifications were therefore held constitutionally valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1685 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192732</link>
      <description>The right to vote and the right to contest Panchayat elections are constitutional rights under Part IX, while Article 243F permits the State Legislature to prescribe disqualifications for membership. The challenged requirements of minimum educational qualification and possession of a functional toilet were upheld because each had a rational nexus with the objectives of effective local self-government, sanitation, and civic responsibility, and each rested on an intelligible differentia. The Article 14 challenge failed because the provisions were not shown to suffer from any concrete constitutional infirmity. The impugned Haryana Panchayati Raj disqualifications were therefore held constitutionally valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>