As per case facts, four nominated members of the Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC) had their appointments terminated by the Governor of Mizoram, who then nominated new members. This action ... occurred while a No Confidence Motion was pending. The aggrieved former members challenged both their termination and the subsequent nominations through a Writ Petition. The High Court initially set aside some nominations but upheld the terminations, a decision later affirmed by its Division Bench. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the Governor's discretion in nominating and removing District Council members, as per the Sixth Schedule, required acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and how Paragraph 20BB specifically impacted this. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that while the Governor's power to *nominate* members falls under discretionary powers (Paragraph 20BB), the power to *terminate* members (Paragraph 6A of Paragraph 2) is *not* discretionary and must be exercised based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Court concluded that the Governor's nominations were valid due to proper exercise of discretion and that the terminations were also valid as they were based on the binding advice of the Council of Ministers. The argument that the Sixth Schedule operates as a separate "Constitution within the Constitution" was rejected.