SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(Ori) 19

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Panigrahi And Narsimham, JJ.
SARADHAKAR SUPAKAR - Appellant
Versus
SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND SECRETARY ORISSA - Respondent
O. J. C.  6  Of  1952
Decided On : MARCH 07, 1952

Advocates Appeared:
H.MOHAPATRA

THE GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY UNDER ARTICLE 176(1) IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FIRST SESSION AFTER EACH GENERAL ELECTION AND AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FIRST SESSION OF EACH YEAR. THE FIRST SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMENCES ONLY AFTER THE PRELIMINARIES, INCLUDING THE ELECTION OF THE SPEAKER, HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

Headnote:

ARTICLE 176 - ADDRESS BY GOVERNOR - ARTICLE 176(1) AND 176(2) - THE GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY UNDER ARTICLE 176(1) IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FIRST SESSION AFTER EACH GENERAL ELECTION AND AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FIRST SESSION OF EACH YEAR. ARTICLE 176(2) PROVIDES FOR THE ALLOTMENT OF TIME FOR DISCUSSION OF THE MATTERS REFERRED TO IN THE ADDRESS.

Fact of the Case:

THE PETITIONER, A MEMBER OF THE ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, CHALLENGED THE PROPOSED ADDRESS OF THE GOVERNOR TO THE ASSEMBLY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD FALL UNDER ARTICLE 175 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT UNDER ARTICLE 176, WHICH GIVES THE RIGHT TO THE HOUSE TO DISCUSS THE MATTERS REFERRED TO IN THE ADDRESS. THE PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT THE FIRST SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY HAD ALREADY COMMENCED ON THE 4TH MARCH 1952, AND THEREFORE, THE GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS ON THE 7TH MARCH COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE ONE GIVEN "AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF A SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY" AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 176, CLAUSE (1).

Finding of the Court:

THE COURT HELD THAT THE GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS ON THE 7TH MARCH WOULD BE AN ADDRESS UNDER ARTICLE 176(1) AND NOT ARTICLE 175. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE WORDS "CAUSES OF SUMMONS" AND "COMMENCEMENT OF A SESSION" HAVE ACQUIRED A WELL-RECOGNIZED MEANING IN THE PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE OF ENGLAND AND HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND BUSINESS FRAMED BY THE ORISSA LEGISLATURE ASSEMBLY INDICATE A SIMILAR PROCEDURE, WHEREBY THE GOVERNOR ADDRESSES THE ASSEMBLY AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF EVERY SESSION.

Issues: 1. WHETHER THE GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS ON THE 7TH MARCH WOULD FALL UNDER ARTICLE 175 OR ARTICLE 176 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 2. WHETHER THE FIRST SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY HAD ALREADY COMMENCED ON THE 4TH MARCH 1952.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. THE COURT INTERPRETED ARTICLES 175 AND 176 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND CONCLUDED THAT THE GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS ON THE 7TH MARCH WOULD BE AN ADDRESS UNDER ARTICLE 176(1) AND NOT ARTICLE 175. THE COURT RELIED ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE ARTICLES, PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE, AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND BUSINESS FRAMED BY THE ORISSA LEGISLATURE ASSEMBLY. 2. THE COURT HELD THAT THE FIRST SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY HAD NOT COMMENCED ON THE 4TH MARCH 1952, AS THE MEMBERS HAD ONLY BEEN SUMMONED TO TAKE THEIR OATHS ON THAT DATE. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE SESSION COMMENCES ONLY AFTER THE PRELIMINARIES, INCLUDING THE ELECTION OF THE SPEAKER, HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

Final Decision: THE COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION, HOLDING THAT THE GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS ON THE 7TH MARCH WOULD BE AN ADDRESS UNDER ARTICLE 176(1) AND NOT ARTICLE 175, AND THAT THE FIRST SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY HAD NOT COMMENCED ON THE 4TH MARCH 1952.

PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sri saradhakar Supakar, a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, praying for the issue of a writ on the Speaker and the Secretary of the Assembly, directing them "to exclude the address of the Governor followed by a discussion thereof as provided for under Article 176 of the Constitution," from the list of business fixed for the 7th and 8th March 1952 and "directing them not to hold any meeting of the Assembly on these dates for that purpose" it is said that a point of order raised for this very purpose was overruled by the acting Speaker on the 6th March 1952.

( 2 ) THE petitioner urges that the first session of the Orissa Legislative Assembly after the recent General Elections commenced its sittings from the 4th March 1952 as the members had been summoned by the Secretary of the Assembly under the direction of the Governor of Orissa to meet on that date. A notice was issued by the Secretary of the Assembly forwarding a copy of the calendar of meetings for "the first session of the Orissa Legislative Assembly commencing from. 4-3-52". The calendar of meetings sent with this notice shows that the 4th and 5th March had been fixed for the administration of oath to the members, the 6th March for the election of the Speaker, and the 7th March for the address of His Excellency the Governor to be followed by a motion "that a respectful address be presented to His Excellency in reply to his speech, expressing the thanks of the Assembly for the speech delivered by him. " the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the proposed address of His excellency the Governor would fall under Article 175 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 176 which under Clause (2) thereof gives the right to the house to discuss the matters referred to in the address. Article 176 Sub-clause (1) as amended reads as follows:

"at the commencement of the first session, after each General election to the Legislative Assembly, and at the commencement of the first session of each year, the Governor shall address the legislative Assembly, or, in the case of a State having a Legislative council, both the Houses assembled together, and inform the legislature of the causes of its summons. "

Article 176 (2) reads as follows :

"provision shall be made by the rules regulating the procedure of the house or either house for the allotment of time for discussion of the matters referred to in such address. "

The petitioner's contention is that the first session of the Assembly has already commenced on the 4th March 1952. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the language employed by the Secretary of the Orissa Legislative assembly in the notice issued by him wherein he says that a copy of the calendar of meetings for the first session of the Orissa Legislative Assembly "commencing from the 4th March" is sent to the members. If, as contended for by the petitioners, the session of the Assembly has already commenced on the 4th March, the Governor's address fixed for today, the 7th March, cannot be said to be one given "at the commencement of a Session of the Assembly" as provided for in Article 176, Clause (1 ). The Governor has the option, to address the Assembly under Article 175 (1) and to send a message under Article 175 (2), but this Article makes no express provision for allotment of time for discussion of the address of the message. Therefore, if the address that the Governor is to give today, the 7th March, is one under Article 175 (1) the Assembly has no right to discuss it. All that is required under Article 175 is that the Governor may "require the attendance of the members" for the purpose of his address. Article 176 (1) on the other hand lays down, in express terms, that the Governor "shall address the Legislative assembly" and "inform the Legislature of the causes of its summons". The difference in the language of the two Articles is int












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top