Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
JAGANNADHA DAS,NARASIMHAM, JJ.
Godavaris Misra
Versus
Nandakisore Das, Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly
O.J.C. No.58 of 1952
Decided On : 05-12-1952
SPEAKER - IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION - QUESTIONS - DISALLOWANCE - POWER OF SPEAKER - RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CONDUCT OF BUSINESS - SCOPE - PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF LEGISLATURE - HOUSE OF COMMONS - PARLIAMENTARY USAGE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, sent notice of two questions to the Secretary of the Assembly. The Speaker disallowed the questions on the grounds that they were inadmissible under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Assembly. The petitioner challenged the Speaker's action by filing a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Speaker of a Legislative Assembly is an officer of the Assembly and is immune from the jurisdiction of any Court in respect of the exercise by him of the powers conferred by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature (Art. 212(2) of the Constitution). 2. The giving of notice of questions by a member of the Assembly is part of the proceedings in the Assembly and consequently any rule regulating the notice of questions is a rule regulating the conduct of business in the Legislature. 3. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Assembly, which were in force prior to the commencement of the Constitution and have been kept alive by virtue of Art. 208(2), include provisions dealing with the conduct of business in the Legislature. 4. The Speaker's action in disallowing the questions was relatable to certain provisions of the rules dealing with the conduct business in the Legislature and the whole question turned on whether his construction of the rules and applying the same to the facts that were placed before him was right or wrong. It cannot be said that he acted in defiance of the provisions of the rules or else that he exercised some powers which he did not possess. 5. The Assembly may claim immunity from interference by the Courts in the administration of those statutory rules which have relation to its own internal proceedings by virtue of cl.(3) of Art.194, which confers on the House of a Legislature (during the interim period) the same powers, privileges and immunities which the House of Commons possesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the Speaker's action in disallowing the questions. 2. Whether the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Assembly include provisions dealing with the conduct of business in the Legislature. 3. Whether the Speaker's action in disallowing the questions was relatable to certain provisions of the rules dealing with the conduct business in the Legislature. 4. Whether the Assembly may claim immunity from interference by the Courts in the administration of those statutory rules which have relation to its own internal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Speaker's action in disallowing the questions was in respect of the exercise by him of the powers conferred by the rules regulating procedure or conduct of business in the Legislature and is therefore immune from the jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 212(2) of the Constitution). 2. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Assembly, which were in force prior to the commencement of the Constitution and have been kept alive by virtue of Art. 208(2), include provisions dealing with the conduct of business in the Legislature. 3. The Speaker's action in disallowing the questions was relatable to certain provisions of the rules dealing with the conduct business in the Legislature and the whole question turned on whether his construction of the rules and applying the same to the facts that were placed before him was right or wrong. It cannot be said that he acted in defiance of the provisions of the rules or else that he exercised some powers which he did not possess. 4. The Assembly may claim immunity from interference by the Courts in the administration of those statutory rules which have relation to its own internal proceedings by virtue of cl.(3) of Art.194, which confers on the House of a Legislature (during the interim period) the same powers, privileges and immunities which the House of Commons possesses.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected.
Judgement
NARASIMHAM, J. :- This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution by Sri Godavaris Misra, a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, against Sri Nandakisore Das, Speaker of that Assembly.
2. On 5-9-52 the petitioner sent notice of the following question to the Secretary, Orissa Legislative Assembly. "Will the Government be pleased to state
(A) Whether the house occupied by Sri L.M. Patnaik, when he was Speaker of this Assembly, was a Government or private building and, if the latter, how it was acquired to serve as the residence of the Speaker;
(B) Whether it is occupied now by the present Speaker or by Sri L.M. Patnaik and, in either case, whether or not, it is so occupied free of rent; and
(C) if rent has been paid for the occupation of the house the period for which it has been so paid by the present occupier and the rent, if any, which Government are paying in respect of it to the proprietor?"
On 6-9-52 he sent notice of another question.
"Will the Government be pleased to state-
(a) What action they have so far taken in fulfillment of promises held out by them on questions raised by the members of this Assembly on the floor thereof during its meetings of the first session held in March, April, May, June, July; 1952, and such of the promises as are still awaiting fulfillment and
(b) The approximate time within which fulfillment of the promises of the latter category, if any, can be expected?"
He was informed by the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly that the aforesaid two questions had been disallowed by the Speaker. The reasons for such disallowance were not clearly stated at that time. But during the pendency of the application before us, the petitioner made a special request to the Speaker to furnish him with the reasons for disallowance of the two questions. Thereupon, the Secretary of the O.L.A. acting under the orders of the Speaker, furnished the reasons which are as follows:
"The starred question dated 6-9-52 regarding the fulfilment of promises made by all the Ministers during the first session of March, April, May, June, and July 1952 etc. Legislative Assembly Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. It was also considered as an abuse of the right of questioning under Rule 49.
The question sent on 5-11-52 (presumably a mistake for 5-9-52) regarding the house occupied by Sri L.M. Patnaik when he was the Speaker of this Assembly Department as worded by Sri Misra relates to the Assembly Department since the building in question was in charge of the Assembly Department who are responsible for the payment of rent. Since no Minister is in charge of the Assembly Department, it is a well-established Parliamentary convention that no sort of question or discussion regarding the Legislature (sic) Department of which the Speaker is the head is allowed. The question also obviously hits Rules 46, 47, 48(12) and 49.
So it was disallowed by me.
Inform Sri Misra accordingly.
Sd/- Nanda Kishore Das.
14-11-52."
3. In view of the provisions of Art.212 of the Constitution we felt some doubts about our jurisdiction to issue a writ under Art.226 of the Constitution against the Speaker of the O.L.A. in respect of his action in disallowing certain questions, notice of which was given by a member of the Assembly. The application was, therefore, heard on the preliminary point about our jurisdiction to interfere with the Speakers action and the Advocate-General was also requested to argue amicus curiae. We are grateful to Mr. H. Mohapatra and to the Advocate-General for the valuable assistance given by them.
4. Article 212 of the Constitution runs thus : Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature.
"212. (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business,
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
