Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jagdish Bhalla and Khem Karan, JJ.
RAGHU RAJ PRATAP SINGH ALIAS RAJA BHAIYA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. - Respondents
Writ Petition 1107 (MB) Of 2003
Decided On : 03/13/2003
Detention - Legislative Assembly Participation - Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act - Articles 174, 175, 189, 191, 194 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, including two Members of Legislative Assembly and electorate, sought permission for the detained legislators to participate in the State Legislative Assembly Session. The detained legislators were in judicial custody under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and other criminal cases. They argued that their right to participate in the legislative proceedings should not be denied, as it is a valuable constitutional right.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detained legislators did not have the right or privilege to participate in the session of the House while under valid detention orders. The court dismissed the writ petitions without any order as to costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the detained legislators had the right or privilege to participate in the legislative proceedings while under valid detention orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detained legislators, under valid detention orders, did not have the right or privilege to participate in the session of the House. The court emphasized that the rights and privileges of a Member of Parliament or the State Legislature to participate in the proceedings of the House are not fundamental rights and do not extend to arrest or detention under preventive law or on a criminal charge.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions without any order as to costs.
( 1 ) INITIALLY, Writ Petition No. 1107 (MB) of 2003, Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya v. State of U. P. and Ors. was filed before this Court and when the hearing was going on, Writ petition No. 1232 (MB) of 2003 ; Dhananjay Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. and Writ Petition no. 1206 (MB) of 2003 ; Vimla Devi and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. were also filed. Since the controversy involved in the above three writ petitions was almost identical in nature, all the above mentioned writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
( 2 ) PETITIONER of Writ Petition No. 1107/mb/2003, namely, Raghuraj Pratap Singh is a Member of legislative Assembly from the Kunda Constituency, district Pratapgarh. Petitioner of Writ petition No. 1232/mb/2003, namely, Dhananjay Singh is also a Member of Legislative assembly from Rari Constituency, district Jaunpur. Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1206/mb/2003, namely, Vimla Devi and others are the electorate of Kunda Constituency and are said to be eligible to cast vote for electing a Member of Legislative Assembly. They in support thereof, have annexed copy of the voter list and identity card issued by the Election Commission of India.
( 3 ) PETITIONER, Raghuraj Pratap Singh, is in judicial custody under the Prevention of Terrorism act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to P. O. T. A.) and other criminal cases including under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Gangsters Act ). He has filed this present writ petition with the prayer that he should be allowed to participate in the State Legislative Assembly Session which is going to commence from 28. 2. 2003. He has further prayed that a direction be issued to opposite parties to bring the petitioner to Lucknow so as to enable him to attend the Session of the Assembly and during the continuance of the session, he should be kept in District Jail, Lucknow.
( 4 ) SIMILARLY, petitioner-Dhananjay Singh, who has preferred this petition on 3. 3. 2003, has also prayed for the same relief as sought for by petitioner-Raghuraj Pratap Singh. In addition to this, he has also prayed for quashing the order dated 27. 2. 2003, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed by Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Lucknow, whereby the application for permitting the petitioner to attend the Session of the Assembly w. e. f. 28. 2. 2003 to 7. 3. 2003 has been rejected.
( 5 ) AT the very outset, it may be mentioned here that petitioner-Raghuraj Pratap Singh has also made similar application along with Dhananjay Singh as is evident from the order dated 27. 2. 2003 but the petitioner, Raghuraj Pratap Singh has not made any averment in his writ petition nor the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court at any stage. Further, he has not questioned the correctness of the order dated 27. 2. 2003. Moreover, petitioner - Raghuraj pratap Singh has also approached the District Judge, Kanpur (Designated Court for trying the cases under P. O. T. A.) by making an application that he may be permitted to take part in the assembly proceeding. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the designated Court on 26. 2. 2003 but significantly, this fact was also not brought to the knowledge of this Court by the petitioner.
( 6 ) PETITIONER Raghuraj Pratap Singh has made an application addressed to Honble the Chief justice, Allahabad High Court and the Speaker of the Assembly mentioning therein his doubts that he may not be allowed to participate in the forthcoming Assembly Session which will amount to violation of his fundamental right. Besides this application dated 25. 2. 2003, an application was made by one, Yashvant Singh, former Minister to the Speaker of the Assembly mentioning therein that a copy of the order passed on the application of Raghuraj Pratap Stngh should be supplied.
( 7 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, toy an application for amendment
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
