Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, G.K. MITTER AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
State of Punjab (In both the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
1. Satya Pal Dang and others (In C. A. No. 1427 of 1968) 2. Dr. Baldev Parkash and others (In C. A. No. 1428 of 1968), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1427 and 1428 of 1968,
D/- 30-7-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India, Mr. Niren De, Solicitor-General of India and Mr. G. R. Majithia, Deputy-Advocate-General for the State of Punjab (M/s. R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, with them), for Appellant (In both the Appeals); M/s. R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co. and Anil Kumar Gupta, N. M. Ghatate, R. M. K. Nair, Chand Kishore, S. P. Singh, Baldev Singh Khoji and B. P. Singh, Advocates for Respondent No. 1 (In C. A. No. 1427 of 1968); M/s. S. K. Dholakia and K. L. Hathi, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (In C. A. No. 1427 of 1968) and Respondents Nos. 2, 12 to 14 and 16 (In C. A. No. 1428 of 1968); Mr. J. N. Kaushal, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Urmila Kapur, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 6 (In C. A. No. 1427 of 1968) and Respondent No. 8 (In C. A. No. 1428 of 1968); Mr. M. C. Chagla, 907 Senior Advocate (M/s. B. S. Dhillon and Hardev Singh, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 (In C. A. No. 1428 of 1968); M/s. Rajendra Sachar and J. C. Talwar, Advocates, for Respondent No. 7 (In C. A. No. 1428 of 1968).
-held, Dy. Speaker who, in the absence of speaker acts as speaker, can also certify under Art. 194(4). Proceedings in Legislature cannot be questioned on grounds of alleged irregularity vide protection given under Art. 212(1).
-held effective date of prorogation is the date of issue of public notification.
-see decision in State of Punjab v. Satya Pal, AIR 1969 SC 903=(1969) 2 SCJ 409=(1969) 2 SCA 299 = 1969(1) SCR 478.
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. :- These appeals arise from two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of Punjab Ordinance I of 1968 promulgated by the Governor of Punjab & Haryana on March 13, 1968 and Punjab Appropriation Acts Nos. 9 and 10 of 1968. A Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana consisting of Mehr Singh, C. J., and Capoor, Harbans Singh, Mahajan and Bedi, JJ., held unanimously that the two Acts were unconstitutional and, by majority, that the Ordinance was also unconstitutional. The High Court certified the cases under Articles 132 and 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution and the State of Punjab appeals. The relevant facts were these :
2. At the Fourth General Elections Congress won 43 seats in the Legislative Assembly which has a membership of 104. The other parties (none of which had a majority in the House) combined and formed the United Front Party. A Ministry was formed under Sardar Gurnam Singh. Some of the respondents here were Minister and members supporting the Ministry. Lt. Cot. Joginder Singh Mann and Dr. Baldeo Singh were elected Speaker and Deputy Speaker respectively.
3. On November 22, 1967, 18 members of United Front Party including Sardar Lachman Singh Gill defected an formed a new party Punjab Janta Party. With the support of the Congress a new Ministry was farmed under Sardar Lachman Singh Gill on November 25, 1967. The Legislative Assembly was then summoned to meet on February 22, 1968. As the budget was to be considered, the Financial Statement was discussed on 4, 5 and 6 March. On the last day, following some disturbance in the House and consequent disciplinary action, a Resolution was moved expressing non-confidence in the Speaker. The House granted leave and then adjourned itself to the following day.
4. When the Session commenced Sardar Gurnam Singh raised a point of order under Rule 112 (1)* of the Rules of Procedure made under Article 208 of the Constitution that there was a contravention of Article 179 (c) in moving the resolution. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the point of order. Suffice it to say that the Speaker declared the motion of non-confidence to be unconstitutional and deemed not to have been moved. Another Resolution was then moved which led to rowdy scenes. The Speaker supporting to act under Rule 105 (2)* adjourned the Assembly for two months.
* 1. "112. Points of order and decisions thereon.
(1) A point of order shall relate to the interpretation or enforcement of these rules or such Articles of the Constitution as regulate the business of the House and shall raise a question which is within the cognizance of the Speaker.
(2) A point of order may be raised in relation to the business before the House at the moment :
Provided that the Speaker may permit a member to raise a point of order during the interval between the termination of one item of business and the commencement of another if it relates to maintenance of order in or arrangement of business before the House.
(3) Subject to conditions referred to in sub-rules (1) and (3) a member may formulate a point of order and the Speaker shall decide whether the point raised is a point of order and, if so, give his decision thereon, which shall be final.
(4) No debate shall be allowed on a point of order, but the Speaker may, if he thinks fit bear members before giving his decision.
(5) A point of order is not a point of privilege.
(6) A member shall not raise a point of order :-
(a) to ask for information, or
(b) to explain his position, or
(c) when a question on any motion is being put to the House, or
(d) which may be hypothetical, or
(e) that division bells did not ring or were not heard.
(7) A member may raise a point of order during a division only on a matter arising out of the division and shall do so sitting."
* 2. "105. Power of Speaker to adjourn the Assembly or suspend sitting.
In the case of grave disorder arising in the Assembly, the Speaker may, if he thinks it necessary t
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
