JUDGMENT - D.R. Dhanuka, J. :—-The petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa duly elected from Mapusa Constituency. The respondent Nos. 2 and 5 are also Members of the said Legislative Assembly. On 16th January, 1995, the respondent No. 5 was declared elected as the Honourable Speaker of the said Assembly. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No. 5 as Speaker of respondent No. 1 Assembly on various grounds set out in the petition and has sought various reliefs as set out in prayer clauses of the petition. The learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 has contended at the outset that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition in view of the constitutional bar contained in Articles 212(1) and 212(2) of the Constitution of India.

2. We shall consider the various submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side in due course.

3. The Governor of Goa had appointed respondent No. 2, a Member of respondent No. 1 Assembly, as a 'Pro-tem Speaker' as permissible under Article 180(1) of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 2 has declared on the floor of the House after ascertaining the wishes of the majority of Members by voice vote that the respondent No. 5 was duly elected as a Speaker of the House. The respondent No. 5 is functioning as Speaker of the House. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Goa Legislature, respectively.

4. This petition involves, inter alia, consideration of the following questions by this Court:-

1(a). Whether the respondent No. 2, having been appointed by the Governor of the State to perform the duties of Speaker under Article 180(1) of the Constitution (popularly known as 'Pro-tem Speaker'), is entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution of India and the Rules of Business framed under Article 208 of the Constitution on par with that of an elected Speaker as an officer of the State Legislature while conducting the business of the House?

1(b)(i) Whether the proceedings of the Legislature concerning election of the Speaker by the Legislature under the Chairmanship of Pro-tem Speaker amount to proceedings relating to conduct of business of the Legislature and are protected under Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India?

1(b)(ii) Whether Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India bars enquiry by the courts into the validity of proceedings in the Legislature of the State on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure only when the proceedings are conducted after the Speaker is elected by the House under Article 178 of the Constitution of India and not at an anterior stage when the election of the Speaker is conducted under the Chairmanship of Pro-tem Speaker?

2. Whether the petition is barred under Articles 212(1) and 212(2) of the Constitution of India and/or on any view of the matter ought not to be entertained or admitted having regard to the wishes of the majority as expressed on the floor of the House by their voice vote as recorded in the proceedings of the Legislature dated 16th January, 1995?

3. Whether the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are entitled to constitutional immunity from being sued under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of India?

4(a) Whether the provision contained in Rule 288 of the Rules of Procedure for taking decision in the House by voice vote, unless the division is asked for by a Member of the House, is applicable also to proceedings concerning the election of Speaker?

4(b) Whether the said provision if held applicable to the election of a Speaker would be violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India?

5(a) Whether there is any merit in the plea of mala fide or bias imputed to respondent No. 2?

5(b) Whether the plea of alleged mala fide and bias is prima facie substantiated?

5. For the reasons set out in the latter part of this judgment, we have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document