https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194417 A special courts law targeting disproportionate-assets cases involving holders of high public or political office was upheld as constitutionally valid where presidential assent covered the State enactment, the law operated in a distinct field, and the classification had a rational nexus with speedy trial. The confiscation machinery was also sustained because it was treated as interim civil-adjudicatory process with notice, hearing, reasoned adjudication, appeal, and restoration safeguards, so it did not violate Articles 14, 20, 21 or 300A. The stay-limiting appeal and refund provisions were saved by reading them narrowly, but the Bihar Rules were invalid to the extent they imposed summary procedure inconsistent with the parent Act. en-us Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194417 A special courts law targeting disproportionate-assets cases involving holders of high public or political office was upheld as constitutionally valid where presidential assent covered the State enactment, the law operated in a distinct field, and the classification had a rational nexus with speedy trial. The confiscation machinery was also sustained because it was treated as interim civil-adjudicatory process with notice, hearing, reasoned adjudication, appeal, and restoration safeguards, so it did not violate Articles 14, 20, 21 or 300A. The stay-limiting appeal and refund provisions were saved by reading them narrowly, but the Bihar Rules were invalid to the extent they imposed summary procedure inconsistent with the parent Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194417