Shifting of proceeding initiated by speaker due to issuance of writ of prohibition.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Anantanarayanan, C.J.-

This is a proceeding Under Article 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. G. Subramaniam), to show cause why he should not he 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.

Annexure C to the petition is an excerpt from a leading daily of Madras dated 11th February, 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.

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 respect 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, Tamilnadu 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 Article 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 case1, Dr. Jatishchandra's case2, and In re Article 143, Constitution of India3.

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 Article 194(3) in view of the failure of the State Legislature

(1969) 1 MLJ 163 at 165

to enact the necess