Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MARLI VANKUNG
V. Zirsanga, S/o. Kapchhunga (L) – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges legality of notifications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background on chief executive member appointments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner indicated issues with notifications prior to filing. (Para 6) |
| 4. petitioner claims governor's notifications invalid. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. governor's authority in appointing cem questioned. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. procedural violations claimed by petitioner. (Para 11 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. defending arguments on necessity of a floor test. (Para 16 , 18 , 22 , 28) |
| 8. court's obligation to uphold democratic values. (Para 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. the importance of a floor test in validating claims. (Para 21 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. legal reasoning for ordering a floor test. (Para 23 , 24 , 30) |
| 11. rules around governor's discretion clarified. (Para 29 , 31) |
| 12. necessity of following legal frameworks emphasized. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 13. court must intervene to maintain constitutional norms. (Para 34 , 35 , 38) |
| 14. decisions must conform to constitutional requirements. (Para 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 15. concluding remarks affirming findings and directing actions. (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
JUDGMENT :
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
Heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned c
The Governor's unilateral action in declaring the previous Chief Executive Member's appointment null was invalid, lacking required adherence to the Lai Autonomous District Council Rules, 2010, and a ....
Governors can impose rule under discretionary powers for political stability, even if it contradicts council advice, as per the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
The Governor's discretionary power to summon a meeting under Rule 36(5) and the importance of a floor test in democratic institutions to ensure stability.
The Governor's nominations under Article 171(5) require adherence to constitutional procedures, with judicial review available for actions deemed ultra vires or in bad faith.
(1) Political imbroglio in State Legislature of Maharashtra – Supreme Court cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification under Tenth Schedule in first instance. There are no extraordin....
The doctrine of pleasure does not permit arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by the State, and such actions must comply with principles of fairness and Article 14 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established is that the expired term of the Autonomous District Council precludes the appellant from claiming the position of Caretaker Chairman, and the absence of provisions fo....
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Rule 8(7)(a) of the Kerala Municipality (Election of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson) Rules 1995, which mandates drawing lots and decla....
The Governor's power to remove nominated Chairmen of Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas under Section 11(3) of the Act is not absolute and is subject to the procedure prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
