https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200323 The High Court held that territorial jurisdiction existed and the petition was maintainable despite objections based on delay, acquiescence and procedural bars. It accepted substantial compliance with constitutional requirements for authentication and expression in the President's name, so the notification appointing the Commission was not invalid on that ground. Failure of earlier parliamentary resolutions did not disable the Government from exercising its separate discretionary power under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. However, the Court held that Section 3 applies only to a definite matter of public importance, and the Schedule 'C' items were too vague and unsupported by bona fide material; they were therefore not validly referable and were quashed, with prohibition against inquiry into those items. en-us Tue, 26 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:26:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200323 The High Court held that territorial jurisdiction existed and the petition was maintainable despite objections based on delay, acquiescence and procedural bars. It accepted substantial compliance with constitutional requirements for authentication and expression in the President's name, so the notification appointing the Commission was not invalid on that ground. Failure of earlier parliamentary resolutions did not disable the Government from exercising its separate discretionary power under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. However, the Court held that Section 3 applies only to a definite matter of public importance, and the Schedule 'C' items were too vague and unsupported by bona fide material; they were therefore not validly referable and were quashed, with prohibition against inquiry into those items. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200323