The Court held that the discussion in regard to the pending writ petition of the petitioner was not permissible under Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of South Houses of the Parliament. The Court further held that the then Prime Minister has committed contempt in not filing counter/show cause pursuant to the notice issued to him in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana. In advising him in not filing show cause and/or not appearing before this Court Respondents Nos. 1 to 15 have also committed contempt.

( 1 ) ORDER :- Through this petition, filed on 26/08/1996, the petitioner prays to issue show cause notices to Respondents Nos. 1 to 15 Sri Vayalar Ravi, Sri John. F. Fernandes, Smt. Jayanti Natrajan, Sri S. S. Ahluwalia, Sri S. M. Krishna, Sri Ish Dutt Yadav, Sri Gurudas Das Gupta, Sri M. A. Baby, Mrs. Najma Heptulla, Sri Priya Ranjan Das Munshi, Sri Santosh Mohan Dev, Sri Basudev Acharya, Sri Nirmal Kanti Chatterjee, Sri P. A. Sangama and Sri Surinder Kumar Singla for having criticised on the floor of the Parliament on July 25, 26 and 30, 1996 two of the Honble Judges of this Court, who on 24-7-1996 had issued notices in her Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19386 of 1996 questioning the validity of the appointment of Respondent No. 16 Sri H. D. Deve Gowda as the Prime Minister of the country and had advised him not to appear before this Court and who did not appear before this Court and punish them for committal of contempt of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) RECORDS of her writ petition discloses that it was heard on the question of its admission by a Division Bench comprising B. M. Lal, J. (who since 9/07/1997 is the Chief Justice of Patna High Court) and J. S. Sidhu, J. on 24-7-96. Sri U. N. Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India accepted notices on behalf of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the writ petition (Union of India and Secretary to the Govt. of India) and undertook to file counter-affidavit within three weeks. Notices were issued to Respondents Nos. 1 and 4 to the writ petition (Respondent No. 16 herein and the Attorney General of India ). The writ petition was directed to be listed on 13-8-1996. The interim prayer for restraining Respondent No. 16 from functioning as the Prime Minister was not granted. 2. 1. It may be mentioned that on 30/07/1996 the Apex Court considered Civil Misc. Writ Petition filed by one S. P. Anand, similar in nature to one filed by the petitioner, and passed the following order :-"we have heard the petitioner-in-person. We find that the very same issue is being raised from Court to Court and it is, therefore, essential that this Court may examine the question to avoid multiplicity of litigation on the same point. We understand that the High Courts of Delhi and Calcutta have already examined this question but the question is still pending in the High Court of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh. We, therefore, think that to avoid multiplicity of litigation, it is desirable that this Court examines the question so that matters pending in the High Courts may stand concluded one way or the other based on the decision of this Court. BEFORE we decide to issue directions in this petition we would like the Attorney General to assist us in this matter. We direct a notice to go to the Attorney General returnable within four weeks from today. In the meantime, we also direct that all proceedings pending on the question, "whether the present Prime Minister whodoes not happen to be a member of either House of Parliament as alleged by the petitioner can be sworn in and can function as the Prime Minister of this Country", should remain stayed wherever it is pending and any petition raising the same question filed hereafter in any Court in the Country shall not be proceeded with after lodgment till further orders of this Court. Notice to go to the Registrars of all High Courts who will ensure that pending petition, if any, shall remain stayed and fresh petitions if filed shall be dealt with as directed. List this petition after four weeks. "2. 2. The writ petition filed by S. P. Anand before the Apex Court was finally dismissed after recording elaborate reasons upholding the appointment of Sri H. D. Deve Gowda as Prime Minister vide judgment and order dated 6/11/1996 which stands reported in (1996) 6 SCC 734 : AIR 1997 SC 272. 2. 3. Thereafter the writ petition of the petitioner was placed before a Division Bench consisting of B. M. Lal and Bhagwan Din, JJ. on 24/02/1997

Click Here to Read the rest of this document