<?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>1991 (10) TMI 323 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277556</link>
    <description>The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is described as a special pre-parliamentary procedure under Article 124(5) for investigating and proving misbehaviour or incapacity before a removal motion reaches the parliamentary stage under Article 124(4). The motion is stated not to lapse on dissolution of the Lok Sabha, because the statute displaces the ordinary lapse rule for parliamentary business. The process up to admission of the motion, constitution of the Inquiry Committee, and recording of its findings is treated as justiciable. The text also states that no prior hearing was mandatory at admission, interim restraint on judicial functions was refused, standing was upheld, and mala fides were not proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:53:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=546307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 323 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277556</link>
      <description>The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is described as a special pre-parliamentary procedure under Article 124(5) for investigating and proving misbehaviour or incapacity before a removal motion reaches the parliamentary stage under Article 124(4). The motion is stated not to lapse on dissolution of the Lok Sabha, because the statute displaces the ordinary lapse rule for parliamentary business. The process up to admission of the motion, constitution of the Inquiry Committee, and recording of its findings is treated as justiciable. The text also states that no prior hearing was mandatory at admission, interim restraint on judicial functions was refused, standing was upheld, and mala fides were not proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>