2016 Supreme(SC) 152

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rep. by its Secretary & Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 455 of 2015
Decided on : 12-02-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 is confined only to enforcement of rights conferred under Part III of Constitution.
Right to freedom of speech within the House is available to a member only during the tenure of his membership and is subject to other provisions of Constitution and rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of the legislative bodies.
Member of legislative assembly does not pursue an ‘occupation’ under Article 19(1)(g).
Entitlement to members of a legislative body of salary and other benefits during their tenure is purely incidental to his membership. It is not an independent and indefeasible constitutional right.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – Confined only to enforcement of rights conferred under Part III of Constitution. (Para 12)

       AIR 1983 SC 848: (1983) 3 SCC 379; AIR 1997 SC 645 : (1997) 9 SCC 377 – Relied upon

       (b) Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(1), 105 and 194 – Freedom of speech – Available to all citizens at all times everywhere under Articles 19(1)(1) but not in legislative bodies – Available to legislatures under Articles 105 and 194 only in the house and till his tenure as member. (Para 18)

       (1998) 4 SCC 626 – Referred

       (c) Constitution of India – Articles 105, 194 and 19(1)(a) – Right to freedom of speech under Article 105 and 194 – Subject to other provisions of Constitution and rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of the legislative bodies – Curtailment of the right under legal framework – Not violating fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). (Para 20)

       AIR 1965 SC 745 – Relied upon

       (1998) 4 SCC 626; (2007) 3 SCC 184 – Referred

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(g) – Occupation – Right to contest election to legislative bodies not a fundamental right – Therefore right to participate in proceedings of the legislative bodies cannot be a fundamental right – Member of a legislative assembly does not hold office for the purpose of eking out a livelihood – Member of legislative assembly, held, does not pursue an ‘occupation’ under Article 19(1)(g). (Para 24, 25, 26)

       (2002) 8 SCC 481; (1989) 4 SCC 105 – Relied upon

       (e) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Entitlement to members of a legislative body of salary and other benefits during their tenure – Purely incidental to membership – Not and independent and indefeasible constitutional right – Suspension of a member – Not amounting to deprivation of fundamental right under Article 21. (Para 29)

       (f) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Non-compliance with natural justice in proceedings within house of legislative bodies – Entitles Courts to undertake judicial review the proceeding. (Para 30)

       (2006) 11 SCC 1; (2007) 3 SCC 184 – Referred

       (g) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Natural justice – Privilege Committee basing its recommendations on the video clipping – Same not supplied to petitioners – Petitioners not even permitted to view the clipping – Clear violation of natural justice – Privilege Committee resolution and resulting suspension of petitioners vitiated. (Para 41, 42)

       (2007) 3 SCC 184, (2006) 11 SCC 1 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The six petitioners are members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly representing different constituencies. By a resolution of the assembly dated 19.02.2015, nineteen members of the assembly, including the six petitioners, have been suspended from the House for the remainder of the period of the then current Session. The resolution suspended the nineteen members for allegedly obstructing the proceedings of the legislative assembly. Subsequently, a Privileges Committee was constituted to inquire into whether the conduct of the members during the incident dated 19.02.2015 amounted to a breach of privilege. The Privileges Committee held that the actions of the six petitioners were a breach of privilege, and recommended the action to be taken against the six petitioners. Such a recommendation was passed by a resolution of the assembly dated 31.03.2015. Through this resolution, the petitioners were suspended for a period of ten days of the next session of the House. Further, it was resolved that the petitioners should not be paid their salaries or given other benefits which are due to them as members of the Legislative Assembly for the period of suspension.

       Finding of the Court:

       Suspension of the petitioners is vitiated.

       Result: Writ petition allowed.