The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned decision of the State Legislature was in violation of the principles of natural justice, and the petitioner's right to cross-examine the complainant was denied, breaching the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Section 26 of the Constitution (44th) Act, 1978. He has also sought a declaration that Article 194 (3) of the Constitution is unworkable and that, its application in the facts of the present case resulted in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has also challenged the Memo dated August 26, 2013, the recommendation contained in the First Report of the Committee of Privilege 2012-2013 of the West Bengal State Legislature and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner on August 27, 2013.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner of reprimand and sentence to detention till the adjournment of the sitting of the West Bengal State Legislative Assembly is bad and should be quashed. He has submitted that, Part III of the Constitution has primacy over any law for the time being in force in India. He has referred to Article 13 and particular to Article 13 (2) and submitted that, Article 13 (2) prohibits making any law which takes away or up bridges the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. He has referred to and relied upon Article 19 of the Constitution and submitted that, a citizen has the Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression. Although, such Fundamental Right can be put under reasonable restriction, none of the grounds, recognised in law to be a reasonable restriction on such Fundamental Right of a citizen, exists in the facts of the present case.

3. Relying upon Article 20 of the Constitution, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, no person can be convicted of any offence expect violating a law in force at the time of commission of the so called offence. According to him, in the present case, there is no allegation of violation of any existing law, as, according to him, no law existed in the manner as claimed for it to be violated by the petitioner.

4. Referring to and relying upon Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, although, no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself, the petitioner was called upon to be a witness and depose on oath when, the petitioner was an accused.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, Article 21 prohibits a person from being deprived of his life or personal liberty without a procedure established by law. According to him, the actions complained of have taken away the personal liberty of the petitioner.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner appeared in a programme on a television channel. It was alleged as against the petitioner by the Privilege Committee of the West Bengal State Legislative Assembly that, the petitioner allegedly used words which were defamatory and derogatory to the Speaker of the Assembly. The State Assembly purported to exercise the power of privilege vested upon them. The State Assembly passed a sentence of punishment and executed the same as against the petitioner. Referring to Articles 105 and 195 of Constitution of India, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, they deal with power and privileges of the house of the Parliament and State Legislatures as also of the member of the committees thereof. According to him the two provisions are pari materia. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Article 208 of the Constitution and submitted that, such Article provides that the house of a legislature of a State can make rules for regulating its procedures and conduct of its business subject to the provisions of the Constitution. He has referred to and relied Article 212 of the Constitution and submitted that, the validity of any proceeding in