As per case facts, a Public Interest Litigation challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 4 of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Amendment) Rules 2003, which removed the bar on simultaneous ... membership in the District Council and State Legislative Assembly. Respondent No. 10 held both positions. Petitioners argued that the spirit of Articles 101 and 190 of the Constitution, prohibiting dual membership in Parliament and State Legislatures, should extend to District Councils. The Election Commission of India and the Governor, referencing a previous judgment, found no disqualification. The question arose whether a CADC member could simultaneously be an MLA and if the spirit of Articles 101 and 190 applied to District Councils under the 6th Schedule. Finally, the Court ruled there is no express bar in the 6th Schedule for such dual membership, and it cannot extrapolate the spirit of Articles 101 and 190 where no enabling provision exists. The Court found no violation of the Constitution by the 2003 Amendment Rules and dismissed the PIL. The non-challenge to the ECI's opinion and the Governor's Order, and non-impleadment of CADC were also noted.