Judgments

IN RE : KESHAV SINGH : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in In Re: Keshav Singh ( Special Reference 1 of 1964) held that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain Petition under Article 226 against warrant issued by the Legislative Assembly.

FACTS OF THE CASE

A pamphlet was published by alleging corruption charges against one of the member of Legislative Assembly – Narsingh Narayan Pandey. A complaint was made in the Legislative Assembly that it amounted to breach of privilege of Narsingh Narayan Pandey and Legislative Assembly. The question was referred to Privilege Committee. Privilege Committee issued notice to four persons – Keshav Singh Shyam Narayan Singh, Hub Lal Dubey and Mahatam Singh. It was alleged that the Keshav Singh, Shyam Narayan Singh and Hub Lal Dubey had printed and distributed the pamphlets. The Privilege Committee found Keshav Singh, Shyam Narayan Singh and Hub Lal Dubey guilty of contempt of Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly passed a resolution that a reprimand be administered to the aforesaid persons. Shyam Narayan Singh and Hub Lal Dubey received the reprimand but Keshav Singh failed to appear. Warrant of arrest was issued against Keshav Singh. He was arrested and produced before Legislative Assembly. It was brought to notice of the Legislative Assembly that he has written a letter to Speaker stating that content of letter was correct and brutal attack has been made on democracy by issuing “Nadirshahi Farman” .  Legislative Assembly sentenced Keshav Singh for seven days imprisonment.

Detention of Keshav Singh was  challenged before High Court. High Court issued notice and also granted bail to Keshav Singh.

The Legislative Assembly passed a Resolution on March 21, 1964 to the effect that two Judges, Petitioner and his Advocate has committed contempt of the House. Two  Judges and Advocate of the Petitioner were directed to be brought to the Legislative Assembly in custody and Keshav Singh to be committed to prison for completing remaining term. The two Judges rushed to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside resolution of the Legislative Assembly. Apprehending that serious problem had arisen, Full Bench consisting of 28 judges restrained the Speaker from issuing warrant.

The Legislative Assembly passed clarificatory resolution and withdrew the earlier resolution and directed the two Judges and the Advocate for the Petitioner to appear before House and offer explanation.

It appeared to the President that serious conflict between the State Legislature and High Court has arisen. The President referred the issue before the Supreme Court under Article 143 for its opinion.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court observed that crux of matter lies in Article 194 (3). As per Article 194 (3) power, privileges and immunities of Legislative Assemblies were same as that of House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution. This clause required that the powers, privileges, and immunities which are claimed by the House must be shown to have subsisted at the commencement of the Constitution i.e. on January 26, 1950.

The Supreme Court observed that although Legislatures have plenary powers  they function within limits prescribed by the material and relevant provisions of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court noted that all powers and privileges which were possessed by House of Commons at the relevant time cannot  be claimed by the Legislatures.

The Supreme Court noted that Article 208 (1) empowers State Legislatures to make rules for regulating conduct of business of House but these rules are subject of provisions of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court also noted that Article 212 (1) lays down that the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. It can be inferred from this that a citizen can not challenge validity of proceedings on the ground of irregularity of procedure but can be challenged on ground of illegality.

Article 211 provides that no discussion shall take place in Legislature of a State with respect to conduct of any judge of Supreme Court or High Court in discharge of his duties. Conduct of a judge in relation to discharge of his duties cannot be legitimately discussed inside house. Such conduct cannot be made subject -matter of any proceedings under the latter part of Article 194(3).

The Supreme Court after surveying several authorities observed that right of House of Commons   to issue general warrant arises out of being Superior Court of record. Legislative history shows that Legislature in India are not superior courts of records. Legislative Assemblies in India have not discharged judicial functions and they can not be treated as Court of Record.

The Supreme Court observed that in the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens, the right of the judicature to deal with matters brought before them under Article 226 or Article 32 cannot be subjected to the powers and privileges of the House under Article 194 (3).

The Supreme Court observed that if a citizen approaches the High Court on the ground that his fundamental rights have been infringed, the High Court will be entitled to examine his claim and that itself would introduce some limitations on the extent of powers claimed by the House in the present proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that in passing of order of interim bail, High Court cannot be said to have exceeded its jurisdiction.

___________________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *