Back
Madras High Court
M. ANANTANARAYANAN,VEERASWAMI, RAMAKRISHNAN, NATESAN,ISMAIL
C.Subramaniam - Appellant
Versus
Speaker of the Madras, Legislative Assembly, Madras - Respondent
Decided On : 03/14/1968
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - PRIVILEGES OF STATE LEGISLATURE - POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - DEFINITION BY LAW - FAILURE OF LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LAW - EFFECT - WHETHER POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES LAPSE - WHETHER SUBJECT TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - CONTEMPT OF LEGISLATURE - NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE - WRIT OF PROHIBITION - WHETHER LIES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly of Madras, made a speech criticizing the Language Resolution adopted by the Assembly. The Assembly passed a motion authorizing the Speaker to issue a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be held to have committed contempt of the House. The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition restraining the Speaker and the State of Madras from proceeding further with the notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the powers, privileges and immunities of the State Legislature are not subject to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution, but are subject to the right guaranteed under Art. 21. The court further held that the failure of the State Legislature to enact a law defining its powers, privileges and immunities does not result in the lapse of such powers, privileges and immunities. The court also held that a writ of prohibition does not lie to restrain the Speaker of the Legislature from proceeding with a notice to show cause why a person should not be held to have committed contempt of the Legislature.
Issues: 1. Whether the powers, privileges and immunities of the State Legislature are subject to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution? 2. Whether the failure of the State Legislature to enact a law defining its powers, privileges and immunities results in the lapse of such powers, privileges and immunities? 3. Whether a writ of prohibition lies to restrain the Speaker of the Legislature from proceeding with a notice to show cause why a person should not be held to have committed contempt of the Legislature?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the powers, privileges and immunities of the State Legislature are not subject to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution, but are subject to the right guaranteed under Art. 21. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in In re Art. 143, Constitution of India, AIR 1965 SC 745, which held that the powers, privileges and immunities of the State Legislature are derived from Art. 194(3) of the Constitution and are not subject to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 2. The court held that the failure of the State Legislature to enact a law defining its powers, privileges and immunities does not result in the lapse of such powers, privileges and immunities. The court reasoned that Art. 194(3) of the Constitution is a transitional provision and that the State Legislature is expected to enact a law defining its powers, privileges and immunities as soon as possible. However, the failure of the State Legislature to enact such a law does not mean that the powers, privileges and immunities of the State Legislature lapse. 3. The court held that a writ of prohibition does not lie to restrain the Speaker of the Legislature from proceeding with a notice to show cause why a person should not be held to have committed contempt of the Legislature. The court reasoned that a writ of prohibition is a discretionary remedy and that it should not be issued to stifle the exercise of jurisdiction by a competent authority. In the present case, the Speaker of the Legislature is empowered by a Resolution of the Legislature to issue a notice to show cause why the petitioner should not be held to have committed contempt of the Legislature. This is a valid exercise of jurisdiction and a writ of prohibition should not be issued to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the notice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for a writ of prohibition.
ANANTANARAYANAN, C.J. :- This is a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of Prohibition restraining the Speaker of the Madras Legislative Assembly (respondent 1) and the State of Madras (respondent 2) from proceeding further with the notice forming Annexure A to the petition, asking the petitioner (Mr. C. Subramaniam) to show cause why he should not be held to have committed contempt of the Legislative Assembly. The Union of India, the Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of Madras have been shown in the array of parties as the third, fourth and fifth respondents to the petition.
2. Annexure C to the petition is an excerpt from a leading daily of Madras dated 11-2-1968, describing a speech made by the petitioner at Dindigul, under the caption "Political Fraud". The report states that Mr. C. Subramaniam (petitioner) referred to the recent Language Bill (more strictly, Language Resolution) adopted by the State Assembly, as the 'biggest political fraud'. In respect of this matter, Annexure B shows that the Legislature adopted a motion to the effect that this was a question of privilege to be dealt with by the House itself and this motion further authorised the Speaker to issue a notice to Mr. Subramaniam, asking him to show cause why he should not be held to have committed contempt of the House, in respect of the passage in his speech, already set forth. Annexure A is the actual notice to show cause received by the petitioner after the Speaker had held that there was a prima facie case of breach of privilege.
3. The single line of reasoning upon which this petition has been argued before us by Mr. V. K. T. Chari for the writ petitioner, proceeds on two related aspects of the law, which are set forth in the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 6 of the affidavit. Before embarking on a scrutiny of this, which is the heart of the matter, we may refer to certain earlier averments in the affidavit. We might immediately state that the accuracy of the report of the speech, is not now in controversy; arguments were submitted, upon the basis of the report being accurate. But the petitioner states that he has been a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Madras, a Member of the Parliament, a Minister of the Madras Government and the Leader of the House in the Madras Assembly, and also a Minister of the Union Government. He is currently holding the political office of the President, Tamilnad Congress Committee. He has a duty towards the public, particularly in the field of political matters, which he must discharge fearlessly, and by virtue of rights inherent in British subjects from the days of the Magna Carta, and re-affirmed by the Constitution of India, particularly in the Preamble and in Art. 19 thereof. After noting these averments, we may first proceed to set forth the reasoning of Mr. Chari, upon the petition. Mr. Chari fully concedes that, whatever might have been the somewhat hazy or indeterminate state of rights as between the subject and the Legislature, and between the Legislature and the Judiciary, which hitherto prevailed, matters are now clear beyond controversy, by virtue of the dicta of the Supreme Court in three important cases, namely, Sharma's case, 1959 SCJ 925 : (AIR 1959 SC 395), Dr. Jatish Chandra's case, 1962-1 SCJ 411 : AIR 1961 SC 613) and In re Art. 143, Constitution of India, AIR 1965 SC 745.
4. At the outset, Mr. Chari stressed the Preamble to the Constitution, particularly the second clause thereof, which enshrines the solemn resolve to secure to all citizens of this country "liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship". He would link this with the Fundamental Right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article" 19 (1) (a), but subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2). Again, he contends that though the privileges of the State Legislature are guaranteed under Art. 194(3), in view of the failure of the State Legislature to e
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
