Back
Judges : M.P.MENON
SUDARSANA BABU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 1789 of 1983
Decided On : 03/25/1983
Advocates Appeared :
S. Easwara Iyer; E. Subramani; For Petitioner V. Bhaskaran Nambiar; For Respondents
Press Pass Denial - Art.226 Petition - Art.14, 19(1)(a), 208, 212, 361A - R.309 of Rules of Procedure - Immunity from Jurisdiction - Fundamental Rights and Legislative Powers - Judicial Review of Legislative Actions
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a staff correspondent of 'Desabhimani', was denied a press pass for the Kerala Legislative Assembly session. The denial was challenged on grounds of discriminatory treatment, violation of constitutional rights, and exceeding the powers conferred by the Constitution. The court admitted the petition for further examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of the press pass raised important questions about the scope of constitutional provisions, including Art.14, 19(1)(a), 208, 212, and 361A. It held that the legislative powers are subject to the provisions of the Constitution, and the courts have the power to enforce fundamental and other constitutional rights, even in matters covered by Art.212.
Issues: The issues involved the denial of press pass, violation of constitutional rights, and the extent of legislative powers under Art.212. The court also considered the immunity from jurisdiction and the scope of judicial review of legislative actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that legislative powers are subject to the provisions of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. It held that the courts have the power to enforce constitutional rights, even in matters covered by Art.212. The court also highlighted the need for judicial review of legislative actions to ensure compliance with the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court admitted the petition for further examination, rejecting the contention that constitutional propriety precludes the court from enforcing its own rules. It ordered immediate steps under R.149 for notice to the respondents.
1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, complaining about the denial of press pass to the staff correspondent of the "Desabhimani", for the session of the Kerala Legislative Assembly which commenced from the last week of February. It is alleged that the practice has been to issue passes to accredited correspondents, that Sudarsana Babu, the correspondent concerned, has been enjoying this facility for three years, and that when the current session commenced, the usual pass was denied to him on the directions of the Speaker, though passes were issued to all the other 74 accredited correspondents. The facility was denied to Babu alone, without assigning any reason, without even informing him, and without a hearing also. The first respondent is the State of Kerala, which is said to be the accrediting agency. The 2nd respondent is the Speaker. The 3rd respondent is the Secretary of the Assembly, responsible for signing the pass. The action is challenged on the following, among other grounds:-
[i] Babu has been singled out for discriminatory treatment, in a manner violative of Art.14 of the Constitution;
[ii] denial of the necessary facility to report the proceedings of the Assembly amounts to a violation of the rights recognised by Art.361A of the Constitution;
[iii] R.309 of the Rules of Procedure made under Art.208 of the Constitution can only be subject to the provision of the Constitution, and therefore the Rule and the action taken in exercise of power thereunder cannot affect the fundamental and other constitutional rights of the petitioner;
and [iv] Art.212[2] is not attracted, because admission of strangers to the Visitors' Gallery or the Press Gallery is not a matter pertaining to regulation of procedure and conduct of business in the Legislature.
2. When the petition was posted for admission before me on 7-3-1983, I felt that it raised important questions about the scope of Art.14,19(1)(a), 208, 212 and 361A of the Constitution, and admitted it. R.149 of the High Court Rules reads:
Every petition shall, soon after it is numbered, be posted for orders of Court for admission. The Court may upon hearing the petitioner or his advocate, either admit the same or reject it. On admission notice shall be ordered to the respondents and along with the notice copies of the application, affidavit and annexures shall be served on the respondents."
But on 10-3-83, before office could issue notice, the Advocate General filed a "statement" in court on behalf of the 1st respondent, suggesting that the Speaker and the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly be removed from the party array. The relevant part of the statement reads:
'I have been instructed by the State Government to apprise this Hon'ble Court of the correct constitutional provision regarding the issuance of notice to the Speaker and the Secretary of the Kerala Legislative Assembly so that the names of respondents 2 and 3 may be removed from the party array in the above Original Petition "
That is how the matter has come up again; and the question is whether any constitutional provision precludes this Court from issuing notice to the Speaker and the Secretary of the Assembly, in a matter like the present.
3. The proper method for reviewing an order passed by a Court, or for striking off parties improperly joined, is not the filing of a statement; but considering the importance of the question raised, and having due regard to the impassioned plea of the Advocate General that this Court shall not embark on a course of confrontation with the Legislative Assembly, I shall proceed to examine it.
4. The short point raised is this. Art.208 of the Constitution empowers the legislature of a State to make rules for regulating its procedure and the conduct of its business; and in exercise of this power, the Kerala legislature has framed certain rules. R.309 of these rules provides that admission of strangers to portions of the Assembly chamber not exclusively reserved f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
