Mack, J.-This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by K. Anandan Nambiar, a Member of the Madras Legislative Assembly. He was arrested on 4th May, 1949, and detained under the Maintenance of Public Order Act. He has since been continuously under detention. He has applied to us for the issue of a writ by way of mandamus or other appropriate writ to declare and enforce his right to attend the present sittings of the Legislative Assembly now in progress either freely or with such restrictions as may be reasonably imposed. He also complains that his letters to the Legislature addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges have been withheld by the Superintendent, Central Jail and seeks a declaration of his right to communicate with the Legislature in his capacity as a member without let or hindrance from prison.

Petitioner Was elected from the Railway Trade Union Labour Constituency at the general elections in 1946 on the communist party ticket. He still retains his seat and received the usual summons sent to all members dated 6th August, 1951, with a message from H.E. the Governor requiring his attendance on Monday, the 20th of August, 1951, on the occasion of his special address to both Houses.

Petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition Crl. M. P. No. 1490 of 1949 under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, to set him at liberty so as to enable him to attend the Legislative Assembly sittings. This was dismissed by Govinda Menon and Rajagopalan, JJ. He filed another Habeas Corpus petition Crl. M. P. No. 3022 of 1949 for his release, inter alia, on the ground that he was, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, immune from arrest. That petition was dismissed by the another Bench Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, JJ. He now applies to us for a similar but slightly different relief invoking Article 226 of the Constitution contending that on the basis that his continued detention is lawful, he has a right to attend the sittings of the Legislative Assembly even from prison under prison escort.

The petition raises substantially a very short and simple point for determination though we have heard a long and elaborate argument both from Mr. Kumaramangalam for the petitioner and the learned Advocate-General. Petitioner does not now press any position before us that he, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, has a privilege of immunity from preventive detention. This postion was fully canvassed before a learned Bench Govinda Menon and Krishnaswami Naidu, JJ., in the case of P. Venkateswarlu another Member of the Legislative Assembly in Crl. M. P. No. 2059 of 1949, a decision reported in Venkateswarlu v. District Magistrate, Guntur1. They held in their decision, dated 27th March, 1950, following the decision in the Ramsay case that a Member of the Legislative Assembly could claim no privilege from arrest and detention under Preventive Detention legislation. Petitioner has filed along with his petition copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Madras Legislature, dated 29th August, 1950, in reply to a letter from him, dated 12th August, 1950, and a telegram to the Chief Secretary, dated 22nd July, 1950, referring him to the Ramsay case, in which the Committee of privileges of the House of Commons held that preventive arrest under statutory authority by executive order was not within the principle of the case to which the privilege from arrest could be extended. It is not necessary to elaborate the law in England relating to privileges of Members of Parliament regarding freedom from arrest and only sufficient to say that while they were entitled to immunity from arrest by a process of civil law 40 days before and 40 days after and also, during the sittings of the House, there was no privilege of arrest when charged or convicted of an indictable offence. Preven-tive detention not being an indictable offence, the question whether a member of Parliament could claim immunity from such detention was considered by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document