Back
Allahbad High Court
GYANENDRAKUMAR
Vijai Pratap Singh - Appellant
Versus
Ajit Prasad - Respondent
Decided On : 09/20/1965
CONTEMPT OF COURT - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - GOVERNOR OF A STATE - IMMUNITY - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - INTERFERENCE WITH COURSE OF JUSTICE - CONTEMPT OF COURT BY SECRETARY OF CONGRESS COMMITTEE - PUNISHMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, V.P. Singh, an advocate practicing at Azamgarh, filed a suit in the Court of the City Munsif, Azamgarh, challenging the election of Badri Singh as a member of the Prarambhik (Primary) Congress Committee of Tarwa. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was expelled from the Congress organization in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress and circular letters issued by the President, U.P. Congress Committee, and the General Secretary, U.P. Congress Committee. The petitioner filed an application in the Court of the City Munsif, Azamgarh, alleging that the expulsion from the Congress organization was an interference with the course of justice and amounted to contempt of court. The opposite parties, including the President and General Secretary of the U.P. Congress Committee, filed their written statements contending that the Indian National Congress was a voluntary organization not incorporated or registered under any law and had its own constitution and procedure for elections and disputes relating to organizational elections were beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proceedings in contempt were in the nature of criminal proceedings and, therefore, provided absolute immunity to the Governor of a State from being proceeded against. The court further held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to organizational elections of the Congress, at least for the limited purpose of determining whether the defendants had acted mala fide, without jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the acts and conduct of the opposite parties, in expelling the petitioner from the Congress organization during the pendency of the suit, amounted to contempt of court by interfering with the process of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the proceedings in contempt were criminal proceedings and, therefore, provided absolute immunity to the Governor of a State from being proceeded against? 2. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to organizational elections of the Congress? 3. Whether the acts and conduct of the opposite parties, in expelling the petitioner from the Congress organization during the pendency of the suit, amounted to contempt of court by interfering with the process of law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the proceedings in contempt were in the nature of criminal proceedings and, therefore, provided absolute immunity to the Governor of a State from being proceeded against, relying on the provisions of Article 361(2) of the Constitution of India, which states that no criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, in any Court during his term of office. 2. The court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to organizational elections of the Congress, at least for the limited purpose of determining whether the defendants had acted mala fide, without jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, relying on the decisions in Annamunthodo v. Oilfields Worker-Trade Union and T.P. Dayar v. Lodge Victoria. 3. The court held that the acts and conduct of the opposite parties, in expelling the petitioner from the Congress organization during the pendency of the suit, amounted to contempt of court by interfering with the process of law, relying on the decision in Pratap Singh v. Gurbaksh Singh.
Final Decision: The court imposed a fine of Rs. 500 each on opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and directed them to pay Rs. 150 as costs to the petitioner and Rs. 30 as costs to the Government Advocate.
2. It appears that by its resolution, dated 4/5-12-1950 the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress had passed a resolution to the effect that any member of the Congress having a grievance in respect of any election of the Congress organisation should approach the tribunals set up by the Congress for that purpose and should obtain redress by way of appeal or reference to one or the other of the tribunals established under the Congress Constitution. It was clearly set out that such matters should not be taken to law Courts. It was accordingly resolved by the Working Committee that any member who institutes a suit or other proceedings in law Courts against any Congress Committee or official was liable to summary removal from the membership of the Congress by order of the Provincial Congress Committee concerned. In view of the above resolution Sri Gulzari Lal Nanda, who had been delegated the authority of the Working Committee in respect of organisational election in U.P., issued a directive, dated 20-4-1964 to the President, U.P. Congress Committee, Opposite Party No. 1, to take immediate action against those members who had gone to the Courts in regard to the Congress organisational elections anywhere in U.P. Accordingly on 21-4-1964 Opposite Party No. 1 issued circular letters to all the District Returning Officers in U.P. expelling those Congressmen from membership of the Congress who had filed suits in law Courts concerning organisational elections. Inter alia one such letter each was also issued by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 to the District Returning Officer, Azamgarh, expelling the petitioner and removing his name from the membership of the Congress. This decision was duly communicated by the District Returning Officer, Azamgarh, to the petitioner. Similar expulsions of many Congressmen were also made in various other districts of U.P.
3. The application, dated 21-4-1964 of Badri Singh (defendant No. 5 to the suit) for vacating the injunction order came up for final hearing before the City Munsif, Azamgarh. on 25-4-1964, when opposite party No. 3 filed his affidavit mentioning the fact that the petitioner had since been expelled from the Congress organisation. The Munsif accordingly vacated the interim injunction by his order, dated 27-4-1964 principally on the ground that the pe
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
