Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
30th September, 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., A.K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Under Article 143, of the Constitution of India; In the matter of.
Special Reference No. 1 of 1964.
Cases Referred : Courtwise Chronological Paras
( 51) AIR 1951 SC 332 (V 38) : 1951 SCR 747, In re, Art. 143, Constitution of India and Delhi Laws Act (1912) etc. 17, 156, 178
( 52) AIR 1952 SC 12 (V 39) : 1952 SCR 28, State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta 137
( 54) AIR 1954 SC 636 (V 41) : 1954 Cri LJ 1704, G. Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan 52, 55, 187, 193
( 57) (S) AIR 1957 SC 912 (V 44) : 1958 SCR 533, State of U. P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava 64, 68
( 58) AIR 1958 SC 956 (V 45) : 1959 SCR 995, In re, Kerala Education Bill, 1957 17
( 59) AIR 1959 SC 395 (V 46) : (1959) Supp (1) SCR 806, M. S. M. Sharma v. Krishna Sinha 36, 37, 46, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 127, 157, 176, 179, 180, 183, 184, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195
( 60) AIR 1960 SC 875 (V 47) : (1960) 3 SCR 250, New India Motors (P) Ltd., New Delhi v. K. T. Morris (P) Ltd., New Delhi v. K. T. Morris 17
( 61) W. P. No. 221 of 1961 (SC), R. K. Karanjia v. M. Anantasayanam Ayyangar, Speaker, Lok Sabha 190
( 63) AIR 1963 SC 1760 (V 50) : (1964) 2 SCJ 51, In re, Sea Customs Act (1878), S. 20(2) 17
( 17) AIR 1917 PC 142 (V 4) : 1917 AC 170, Montreal Street Railway Co. v. Normandin 68
( 36) AIR 1936 PC 141 (V 23) : 1936 All LJ 671, Andre Paul v. Attorney General of Tribunal 142
751
( 45) AIR 1945 PC 94 (V 32) : 72 Ind App 120: 46 Cri LJ 662, Jairam Das v. Emperor 49
( 39) AIR 1939 FC 1 (V 26) : 1939 FCR 18, In re, Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act 1938 117
( 52) AIR 1952 Mad 395 (V 39) : ILR (1952) Mad 933, Anantha Krishnan v. State of Madras 57
(1677) 86 ER 792 : 1 Mod Rep. 144, Earl of Shaftesbury s Case 88, 89, 95, 99
(1703) 92 ER 126 : 6 Mod Rep 45, Ashby v. White 93
(1704) 14 State Tr. 695, Ashby v. White 82
(1704) 92 ER 232 : 2 Ld. Raym. 1106, R. v. Paty 95
(1751) 95 ER 629 : 1 Wils 299, Murray s Case 96
(1771) 95 ER 1005 : 3 Wils 188 : 19 State Tr. 1137, Bross Crosby s case 97, 98, 209
(1811) 104 ER 501 : 14 East 1, Burdett v Abbot 91, 99, 105, 113, 153, 166, 196
(1817) 3 ER 1289 : 5 Dow 165, Burdett v. Abbot 101, 159, 164, 166, 167
(1839) 112 ER 1112 : 9 Ad and El. 1, Stockdale v. Hansford 92, 98, 105, 165, 167, 170
(1840) 113 ER 419 : 11 Ad and El. 273, In the case of Sheriff of Middlesex 104, 113, 116, 161, 166
(1842) 4 Moore PC 63 : 4 State Tr. (NS) 669, Kielley v. Carson 71
(1845) 1 16 ER 139 : 10 QB 359, Howard v. Sir William Gossett 106, 168
(1864) 1 Moo PC (NS) 487 : 15 ER 784, Dill v. Murphy 116
(1871) LR 3 PC 560 : 17 ER 170, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria v. Hugh Glass 110, 116, 157, 162
(1884) 12 QBD 271 : 53 LJQB 200, Bradlaugh v. Gossett 88, 108, 151, 169, 209
(1896) 1896 AC 600, Fielding v. Thomas 113, 158, 162
(1910) 1910-2 KB 576, The King v. Earl of Crewe; Ex parte, Sekgome 133
(1923) 1923-2 KB 361 : 92 LJ KB 797, The King v. Secy. of State for Home Affairs; Ex parte, O brien 133
(1958) 1958 AC 331 : 1958-2 All ER 329, In re, Parliamentary Privilege Act, 1770 130
(1959) 1959-1 QB 378 : 1959-1 All ER 73, In re, Hunt 119
92 C. W. L. R. 157, The Queen v. Richards 114, 118, 157, 158, 162
92 C WLR 171, Queen v. Richards 158, 162
12 State Tr. 822, Jay v. Topham 90, 209
Advocate appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India, Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Solicitor General of India, Mr. S. V. Gupte, Addl. Solicitor General of India (M/s. B. R. L, lyengar and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with them), for Attorney General for India.
M/s. M. C. Setalvad, G. S. Pathak and Jagdish Swaroop, Senior Advocates, (M/s. S. N. Andley, P. L. Vohra and Rameshwar Nath Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. and M/s. Mahinder Narain, Harsh K. Puri and Suresh Vohra Advocates, with them), for Hon ble the Chief Justice and other Judges of the Allahabad High Court.
M/s. G. S. Pathak and Jagdish Swaroop, Senior Advocates (M/s. Bishun Singh, Gopal Behari, J. S. Trivedi, S. N. Pawnikar, Advocates and M/s. S. N. Andley, P. L. Vohra and Rameshwar Nath Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with them), for Hon ble Mr. Justice N. U. Beg.
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Asif Ansari and M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg Advocates of M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi and Co., with him), for Hon ble Justice G. D. Sehgal.
M/s. H. M. Seervi, Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra (M/s. T. R. Anadhyarujina and S. P. Varma, Advocates, with him), for U. P. Vidhan Sabha.
Mr. N. A. Palkhivala Senior Advocate (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Hon ble Chief Justice, Maharashtra High Court.
Mr. J. M. Thakore Advocate General for the State of Gujarat (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Hon ble Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court.
Mr. D. Narasaraju, Senior Advocate (M/s. N. Ramdar, O. P. Malhotra, B. Parthisarathy Advocates and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain -Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Hon ble Chief Justice, Orissa High Court.
Mr. Murli Manohar Vyas, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. Murti, B. N. Kirpal, B. L. Khanna, K. K. Jain, Chitale, and M. S. Gupta Advocates, with him), for Hon ble Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court.
Mr. Murli Manohar Vyas, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. Murti, B. N. Kirpal, B. L. Khanna, K. K. Jain, Chitale, and M. S. Gupta Advocates, with him), for Hon ble Chief Justice, Madhya Pradesh High Court.
M/s. D. P. Singh, S. Balkrishnan, Shanti Bhatnagar and Lal Narayan Singh, Advocates, for Hon ble Chief Justice, Patna High Court. 752
Mr. A. C. Mitra, Senior Advocate (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for Hon ble Speaker W. B. L. A.
Mr. S. S. Sanyal, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. K. Acharyya and D. N. Mukherjee Advocates, with him), for Hon ble Chairman W. B. L. C.
Mr. H. M. Seervai, Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra (Mr. T. R. Anadhyarujina, Advocate and M/s. R. A. Gagrat and V. J. Merchant Advocates of M/s. Gagrat and Co., with him), for Hon ble Speaker/Chairman Maharashtra L. A. and L. C.
M/s. G. N. Joshi, Atiqur Rehman and K. L. Hathi Advocates, for Hon ble Speaker, Gujarat L. A.
M/s. Atiqur Rehman and K. L. Hathi Advocates, for Hon ble Speaker, Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha.
Mr. B. C. Barua, Advocate General for the State of Assam, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Hon ble Speaker, Assam Legislative Assembly.
Shri D. M. Sen, Advocate General, Nagaland (Mr. Naunit Lal Advocate, with him), for Nagaland Legislative Assembly.
Shri B. P. Jha, Advocate, for Hon ble Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and Hon ble Speaker Bihar Legislative Assembly.
Mr. K. L. Misra, Advocate General for the State of U. P. (M/s. B. C. Misra, D. D. Chaudhury and Mr. C. P. Lal Advocates, with him), for the Advocate General for the State of U. P.
Mr. M. Adhikari, Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him), for the Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Mr. N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, Advocate General for the State of Madras (M/s. V. Ramaswamy and A. V. Rangam, Advocates, with him), for the Advocate General for the State of Madras.
Mr. B. V. Subrahmanyam, Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh (M/s. M. Jaganadha Rao and T. V. R. Tatachari, Advocates, with him), for the Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. C. Bose and P. K. Bose, Advocates, with him), for the Advocate General for the State of West Bengal.
Mr. G. C. Kasliwal, Advocate General, for the State of Rajasthan (Mr. M. V. Goswami, Advocate, with him), for the Advocate General, for the State of Rajasthan.
Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, for the Advocate for the State of Bihar.
Mr. J. P. Goyal, Advocate, for M/s. Keshav Singh and B. Soloman.
Mr. M. K. Nambyar, Senior Advocate (Mr. N. N. Keswani, Advocate, with him), for Bar Council of India.
M/s. M. K. Nambyar, Choudhury Hyder Hussain, Senior Advocates (M/s. B. K. Dhawan, Bishun Singh, Shiv Sastri and S. S. Shukla Advocates with them), for Oudh Bar Association.
Mr. R. Jethmalani, Miss P. K. Kapila and Mr. A. K. Nag, Advocates, for Western India Advocates Association (Intervener).
M/s. S. N. Kakar, C. S. Saran and G. P. Gupta, Advocates and Mr. S. C. Agarwal, Advocates of M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi and Co., for Allahabad H. C. Bar Association (Intervener).
Mr. M. K. Nambyar, Senior Advocate (Dr. V. A. Seyid Muhammad, Advocate, with him), for Bar Association of India (Intervener).
Mr. R. V. S. Mani, Shaukat Husain, E.C. Agarwala, Miss Shahzadi Mohiuddin and Mr. P.C. Agarwal, Advocates, for Applicants, Interveners (a) Lok Raksha Samaj (Sewak) (b) All India Civil Liberties Council (c) Sapru Law Society :
M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. C. Agarwal, Advocates of M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi and Co., for Applicant - Intervener Delhi Union of Journalists.
M/s. K. Rajendra Choudhury and K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocates, for Applicant - Intervener Bihar Working Journalists Union.
Mr. Chinta Subba Rao, President for Applicant - Intervener Institute of Public Opinion.
OPINIONS.
-held Article 19(1)(a) is not one of provisions of Constitution which controls Arts 194(1) regarding freedom of speech in Legislative Assembly. In. Re. Under Art 143 AIR 1965 SC 745=(1965) I SCR 413.
-held right of citizens under Article 32 and construction of the latter part of Article 194 (3) make it that any power or privilege can be claimed by House though it may be inconsistent with Article 21. Rules that House can make for conduct of its business should conform to Constitutional Provision in Article 208(1) - see also provisions of Article 143.
-held, it is “Procedure established by Law” within meaning of Article 21.
-see decision in The Matter of Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, AIR 1965 SC 745=(1965) I SCR 413.
-held Article is wide enough to include reference to Supreme Court for advisory opinion any question of law or that which has arisen or likely to arise provided the question is of such public importance.
-held, right of legislature to punish a citizen claimed as integral part of its power, privileges is inconsistent with material provisions of constitution and not supported by construction of later part of Article 194(3) and other provision.
-held, conflict between provisions in second part of Art. 194 (3) which confers privilege on a House and a Fundamental Right has to be resolved by harmonising two provisions. If a law is made by the legislature under Article 194 (3), this would be a law under Article 13 and if the law abridges Fundamental Right, law would be void under Article 12.
-held Art. 19(1)(a) is not one of provisions of Constitution which controls Article 194(1) regarding freedom of speech in Legislative Assembly. In Re. under Art 143 AIR 1965 SC 745=(1965) I SCR 413 = 1965(1) SCJ 847 = 1965(1) SCA 441.
-held, Article 226 confers wide power on H.C. Right under Article 32 to move Supreme Court, for enforcement of fundamental right, is itself a fundamental right.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : (for self and other Judges except Sarkar, J.) :
This is Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 by which the President has formulated five questions for the opinion of this Court under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution. The said Article authorises the President to refer to this Court questions of law or fact which appear to him to have arisen or are likely to arise and which are of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the SC upon them. Article 143 (1) provides that when such questions are referred to this Court by the President, the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon. In his order of reference made on the 26th March, 1964, the President has expressed his conclusion that the questions of law set out in order of reference are of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient that the opinion of the SC of India should be obtained thereon.
2. It appears that on the 14th March, 1964, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh administered, in the name of and under the orders of the said Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as "the House ), a reprimand to Keshav Singh, who is a resident of Gorakhpur, for having committed contempt of the House and also for having committed a breach of the privileges of Narsingh Narain Pandey, a Member of the House. The contempt and the breach of privileges in question arose because of a pamphlet which was printed and published and which bore the signature of Keshav Singh along with the signatures of other persons. In pursuance of the decision taken by the House later on the same day, the Speaker directed that the said Keshav Singh be committed to prison for committing another contempt of the House by his conduct in the House when he was summoned to receive the aforesaid reprimand and for writing a disrespectful letter to the Speaker of the House earlier. According to this order, a warrant was issued over the signature of the Speaker of the House. Mr.Verma, directing that Keshav Singh be detained in the District Jail, Lucknow for a period of seven days, and in execution of the warrant Keshav Singh was detained in the said Jail.
3. On the 19th March, 1964, Mr. B. Solomon, an Advocate practising before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, presented a petition to the High Court on behalf of Keshav Singh under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as well as under Article 226 of the Constitution. To this petition were impleaded the Speaker of the House, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and the Superintendent of the District Jail, Lucknow where Keshav Singh was serving the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the House, as respondents 1 to 4 respectively. The petition thus presented on behalf of Keshav Singh alleged that his detention in jail was illegal on several grounds. According to the petition, Keshav Singh had been ordered to be imprisoned after the reprimand had been administered to him, and that made the order of imprisonment illegal and without authority. The petition further alleged that Keshav Singh had not been given an opportunity to defend himself and that his detention was mala fide and was against the principles of natural justice, it was also his case that respondents 1 to 3 had no authority to send him to the District Jail, Lucknow and that made his detention in jail illegal.
4. After the said petition was filed before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the learned Advocates for both the parties appeared before Beg and Sahgal JJ. at 2 P. M. and agreed that the petition should be taken at 3 P. M. the same day. Mr. Solomon represented Keshav Singh and Mr. K. N. Kapur, Assistant Government Advocate, appeared for all the respondents. Accordingly, the petition was taken before the Court at 3 P. M. On this occasion Mr. Solomon appeared for the petitioner but Mr. Kapur did not
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
