2010 Supreme(SC) 364

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
Amrinder Singh
Versus
Spl.Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6053 OF 2008 With connected T.C. and W.Ps.
Decided on : 26-04-2010

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 194 – Akin to Article 105 regarding Parliamentary privileges – Therefore principles and precedents relatable to the exercise of parliamentary privileges are relevant for deciding exercise of State legislative privileges – Legislative privileges are exercised to safeguard integrity of legislative functions against obstructions – It can be likened to the powers of the superior courts to punish for contempt – Powers contained in Article 194(3) are those `necessary for the conduct of the business of the House’. (Para 15, 17, 18, 22, 24)

       (2007) 3 SCC 184; (1993) 100 DLR (4th) 212; AIR 1965 SC 745; (1977) 4 SCC 608 – Relied upon

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 194 – A member can be expelled/disqualified for obstruction to the conduct of legislative business – Exempting a particular plot from acquisition cannot be covered by the provision – If the House at all felt disrepute by this action – Proper course would be to pursue criminal prosecution. (Para 27)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 194(3) and 105(3) – Articles 122(1) and 212(1) bar enquiry by Courts into matters related to irregularities in observance of procedures before the legislature matters related to irregularities in observance of procedures before the legislature – Does not bar enquiry into legality or constitutionality of proceedings – Action taken for allegations of wrongdoing in executive capacity – Not proper. (Para 29, 30)

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 194(3) r/w Article 190 and 191 – Expressions `lowering the dignity of the house’, `conduct unbecoming of a member of the House’ and `unfitness of a member’ – Openly-worded and abstract grounds – If recognised, will trigger indiscriminate and disproportionate use of legislative privileges by incumbent majorities to target their political opponents as well as dissidents. (Para 38)

       (e) Doctrine of lapse – Alleged executive taken by appellant during previous Assembly –Matter discussed also – No matter relating to alleged in proper exemption of land pending before present Assembly – Taking up privilege motion – Not tenable. (Para 44, 45)

       (2002) 8 SCC 237; AIR 1962 SC 694; (1991) 4 SCC 699 – Relied upon

       (f) Rules of Business and Conduct of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha – Rules 39(10), 50, 93(2)(iv) and 150(d) – Doctrine of separation – Content of legislative proceedings should not touch on sub judice matters – Vidha Sabha assuming role and responsibility of executive and judiciary by directing procedure for investigation and undertaking monitoring of the case – Not tenable. (Para 51, 52, 53)

       (1975) Supp SCC 1; 103 US 168 (1881) – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The Amritsar Land Improvement had notified the plan for acquisition in pursuance of a developmental scheme. Earlier, on 23-6-2003, a private party (M/s. Veer Colonizers) had applied for a licence to develop a plot of 32.10 acres situated in the proximity of the Amritsar-Jalandhar road. At the time of the colonizer’s application for a development licence, the said plot was not covered by any acquisition scheme. After the notification of the scheme, the colonizer approached the concerned authorities, seeking an exemption from the proposed acquisition of land. Subsequently the Amritsar Land Improvement Trust granted a No-objection certificate, thereby permitting the exemption of the said plot of 32.10 acres from the scheme for acquisition.

       Since the appellant was serving as the Chief Minister of the State at the time, it was alleged that the decision to exempt the plot was an executive act that could be attributed to him.

       Some other private parties who owned plots in the pool of land that had been notified for acquisition by the Amritsar Land Improvement Trust on 5-12-2003, raised objections against the above exemption alleging that the State Government had unduly favoured one private party by exempting the said plot of 32.10 acres from the scheme for acquisition. In fact the validity of the exemption was questioned in several cases instituted before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

       Special Committee of the Vidhan Sabha submitted its report which included findings that Captain Amarinder Singh (former Chief Minister, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6053 of 2008), Choudhary Jagjit Singh [former Local Bodies Minister, petitioner in Writ Petition (Civ.) No. 443 of 2008], Late Sh. Raghunath Sahai Puri [former Housing Minister, since deceased] and Sh. Jugal Kishore Sharma [former Chairman of Amritsar Land Improvement Trust, petitioner in Writ Petition (Civ.) No. 442 of 2008) had been involved in `corruption, conspiracy to cause wrongful loss and abuse of public office’ in relation to the exemption of land from the above- mentioned acquisition scheme.

       After considering these findings, the Punjab Vidhan Sabha passed the impugned resolution on 10-9-2008.

       In pursuance of the said resolution, the secretariat of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha issued a notification on 10-9-2008 which declared that Captain Amarinder Singh had been expelled from the membership of the 13th Vidhan Sabha for the remaining term of the State Legislature, (that is 3.5 years). It was also declared that his assembly constituency seat (76-Patiala Town) was rendered vacant, thereby setting aside his election to the same.

       Aggrieved by the findings of the report submitted by the Special Committee on 3-9-2008, the appellant moved the High Court to challenge the Special Committee’s report as well as the impugned resolution dated 10.9.2008. The High Court did not grant a stay on the operation of the impugned resolution, but granted protection to Captain Amarinder Singh from custodial interrogation and directed further listing on 1-12-2008.

       Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the appellant approached Supreme Court contending that the High Court ought to have stayed the report dated 3.9.2008 and the Resolution and Notification dated 10.9.2008. He apprehended that a fresh election would be conducted in the intervening period, thereby compromising his rights.

       A division bench of Supreme Court referred the case for hearing by a three judge bench.

       The three judge bench did not grant a stay on the operation of the impugned resolution. However, relief was granted to the extent that even though the appellant could not participate in the legislative proceedings, his seat would not fall vacant until the adjudication of this case. A stay was also granted in respect of the Vidhan Sabha’s specific directions to the Punjab Vigilance Department, but it was clarified that the appellant and the petitioners could be investigated in accordance with law.

       Subsequently, the three judge bench found that the subject matter touched on substantial questions of law requiring the interpretation of Article 194(3) of the Constitution, thereby deeming it fit to refer these matters to a constitution bench by way of an order dated 11-2-2009.

       Finding of the Court:

       Resolution passed by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha on 10-9-2008, directing the expulsion of the appellant for the remainder of the 13th term of the Vidhan Sabha is constitutionally invalid.

       Result:

       Appeal and related matters disposed of.