<?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>2014 (3) TMI 1119 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200296</link>
    <description>Part IX of the Constitution permits State legislation regulating Panchayat composition, election, reservation, disqualification and functioning, and a statutory no-confidence procedure against a Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha is not invalid merely because the Constitution does not expressly mention it. Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat &amp; Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 was treated as consistent with this constitutional scheme because it requires support of the prescribed majority of elected members and preserves democratic control. The reservation-based challenge also failed: election from a reserved seat did not confer immunity from a no-confidence motion, and removal of the Chairperson did not defeat the reservation framework. The earlier precedent upholding the mechanism was reaffirmed as good law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2018 18:52:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 1119 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200296</link>
      <description>Part IX of the Constitution permits State legislation regulating Panchayat composition, election, reservation, disqualification and functioning, and a statutory no-confidence procedure against a Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha is not invalid merely because the Constitution does not expressly mention it. Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat &amp; Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 was treated as consistent with this constitutional scheme because it requires support of the prescribed majority of elected members and preserves democratic control. The reservation-based challenge also failed: election from a reserved seat did not confer immunity from a no-confidence motion, and removal of the Chairperson did not defeat the reservation framework. The earlier precedent upholding the mechanism was reaffirmed as good law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>