Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 143
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
Justice Ripusudan Dayal (Retd.) & Others – Appellants
Versus
State of M.P. & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 613 of 2007
Decided On : 25-02-2014
Important Points
1. Enquiry or investigation into an allegation of corruption against some officers of the Legislative Assembly cannot be said to interfere with the legislative functions of the Assembly. No one enjoys any privilege against criminal prosecution.2. Privileges are available only insofar as they are necessary in order that House may freely perform its functions. For the application of laws, particularly, the provisions of the Lokayukt Act, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the jurisdiction of the Lokayukt or the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment is for all public servants (except the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha for the purposes of the Lokayukt Act) . No privilege is available to the officials and, in any case, they cannot claim any privilege more than an ordinary citizen to whom the provisions of the said Acts apply.3. The law does not make any differentiation and applies to all with equal vigour.
Headnote:Constitution of India,1950-Article 32-Writ petition filed by petitioners challenging validity of certain letters issued by Mr. Qazi Aqlimuddin , Secretary, Vidhan Sabha on various dates against them with regard to a case registered by Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt Organisation, against the officials of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat as well as against concerned officials of the Capital Project Administration, the Contractor Company alleging irregularity in the construction work carried out in the premises of Vidhan Sabha- Held neither did the House of Commons enjoy any privilege, at the time of the commencement of the Constitution, of a nature that may have the effect of restraining any inquiry or investigation against the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of the Legislative Assembly or for that matter against the member of the Legislative Assembly or a minister in the executive government nor does the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly of the State or its members- The laws apply equally and there is no privilege which prohibits action of registration of a case by an authority which has been empowered by the legislature to investigate the cases- Simply because the officers belong to the office of the Hon’ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the provisions of the Act do not cease to apply to them- The law does not make any differentiation and applies to all with equal vigour- As such, the initiation of action does not and cannot amount to a breach of privilege of the Legislative Assembly, which has itself conferred powers in the form of a Statute to eradicate the menace of corruption- Writ petition allowed (Para 58)
Constitution of India,1950-Article 32-Writ petition filed by petitioners challenging validity of certain letters issued by Mr. Qazi Aqlimuddin , Secretary, Vidhan Sabha on various dates against them with regard to a case registered by Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt Organisation, against the officials of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat as well as against concerned officials of the Capital Project Administration, the Contractor Company alleging irregularity in the construction work carried out in the premises of Vidhan Sabha- Held petitioners could not, while acting under the said statute, be said to have lowered the dignity of the very Assembly which has conferred the power upon the petitioners- Since authority to act had been conferred upon the petitioners under the Act by the Legislative Assembly itself , action taken by petitioners under said Act could not constitute a breach of privilege of that Legislative Assembly- By carrying out investigation on a complaint received, the petitioners merely performed their statutory duty and did not in any way affect the privileges which were being enjoyed by the Assembly and its members- The action of the petitioners did not interfere in the working of the House -No grounds for issuing a notice for breach of Privilege of the Legislative Assembly- Writ petition allowed (Paras 59,60)
Constitution of India,1950-Article 32- Whether the Legislative Assembly or its Members enjoy any privilege in respect of an inquiry or an investigation into a criminal offence punishable under any law for the time being in force, even when inquiry or investigation was initiated in performance of duty enjoined by law enacted by the very Legislative Assembly of which the breach of privilege is alleged?-Held that privileges are available only insofar as they are necessary in order that House may freely perform its functions- For the application of laws, particularly, the provisions of the Lokayukt Act, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the jurisdiction of the Lokayukt or the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment is for all public servants (except the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha for the purposes of the Lokayukt Act) - No privilege is available to the officials and, in any case, they cannot claim any privilege more than an ordinary citizen to whom the provisions of the said Acts apply- Privileges do not extend to the activities undertaken outside the House on which the legislative provisions would apply without any differentiation-Instantly, action taken by petitioners was within the powers conferred under said statutes –Hence action taken by petitioners was legal- Again, initiation of action for which petitioners were legally empowered, could not constitute breach of any privilege- Impugned letters/notices held liable to be quashed -Writ petition allowed (Paras 66 to 69)
Facts of the Case-Writ petition was filed herein in the instant case by petitioners challenging validity of certain letters issued by Mr. Qazi Aqlimuddin , Secretary, Vidhan Sabha on various dates against them with regard to a case registered by Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt Organisation, against the officials of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat as well as against concerned officials of the Capital Project Administration, the Contractor Company alleging irregularity in the construction work carried out in the premises of Vidhan Sabha. Petitioner No.1 was the Lokayukt of State of Madhya Pradesh ,Petitioner No.2 was the Legal Advisor, a member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service on deputation with the Lokayukt and Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 were the officers of Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment.Grievance of petitioners that said letters violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 and were contrary to Article 194(3) and prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction quashing said letters.
Findings of the Court-The Supreme Court held that neither did the House of Commons enjoy any privilege, at the time of the commencement of the Constitution, of a nature that may have the effect of restraining any inquiry or investigation against the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of the Legislative Assembly or for that matter against the member of the Legislative Assembly or a minister in the executive government nor does the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly of the State or its members. The laws apply equally and there is no privilege which prohibits action of registration of a case by an authority which has been empowered by the legislature to investigate the cases. Simply because the officers belong to the office of the Hon’ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the provisions of the Act do not cease to apply to them. The law does not make any differentiation and applies to all with equal vigour. As such, the initiation of action does not and cannot amount to a breach of privilege of the Legislative Assembly, which has itself conferred powers in the form of a Statute to eradicate the menace of corruption. Writ petition was allowed.
Result- Writ petition allowed
Judgment :-
P. Sathasivam, CJI.
1) The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners challenging the validity of certain letters issued by Mr. Qazi Aqlimuddin – Secretary, Vidhan Sabha (Respondent No.4 herein) on various dates against them with regard to a case registered by the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt Organisation, against the officials of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat as well as against the concerned officials of the Capital Project Administration-the Contractor Company alleging irregularity in the construction work carried out in the premises of Vidhan Sabha.
2) It is relevant to mention that Petitioner No.1 herein was the Lokayukt of the State of Madhya Pradesh appointed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Lokayukt Act”). Petitioner No.2 was the Legal Advisor, a member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service on deputation with the Lokayukt and Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 were the officers of Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment.
3) The petitioners herein claimed that the said letters violate their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and are contrary to Article 194(3) and prayed for the issuance of a writ, order or direction(s) quashing the said letters as well as the complaints filed by Respondent Nos. 5, 6 (since expired), 7, 8 and 9 herein.
(a) An anonymous complaint was received on 21.06.2005 in the office of the Lokayukt stating that a road connecting the Vidhan Sabha with Vallabh Bhawan, involving an expenditure of about Rs. 2 crores, was being constructed without inviting tenders and complying with the prescribed procedure. It was also averred in the said complaint that with a view to regularize the above-said works, the officers misused their official position and got the work sanctioned to the Capital Project Administration in violation of the rules which amounts to serious financial irregularity and misuse of office. It was also mentioned in the said complaint that in order to construct the said road, one hundred trees had been cut down without getting the permission from the concerned department. The said complaint was registered as E.R. No.127 of 2005. During the inquiry, the Deputy Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, vide letter dated 18.08.2005 stated that the work had been allotted to the lowest tenderer and the trees were cut only after obtaining the requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation. In view of the said reply, the matter was closed on 22.08.2005.
(b) On 22.12.2006, again a complaint was filed by one Shri P.N. Tiwari, supported with affidavit and various documents, alleging the same irregularities in the said construction work by the officers of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat in collusion with the Capital Project Administration which got registered as E.R. No. 122 of 2006. A copy of the said complaint was sent to the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Government, Housing and Environment Department for comments. In reply, the Additional Secretary, M.P. Government, Housing and Environment Department submitted the comments along with certain documents stating that the Building Controller Division working under the Capital Project Administration was transferred to the administrative control of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat vide Order dated 17.07.2000 and consequently the Secretariat Vidhan Sabha was solely responsible for the construction and maintenance work within the Vidhan Sabha premises.
(c) On 26.06.2007, a request was made to the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment Department to submit all the relevant records, tender documents, note sheets, administrative, technical and budgetary sanctions by 10.10.2007. By letter dated 17.07.2007, the Under Secretary of the said Department informed that since the administrative sanctions were issued by the Secretariat Vidhan Sabha, the m
