Back
Allahbad High Court
J.N.TAKRU,G.C.MATHUR
Keshav Singh - Appellant
Versus
Speaker, Legislative Assembly U.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09/10/1965
CONTEMPT OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - POWER TO PUNISH - PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES - ARTICLE 194(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION - APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 22(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION - VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 21 AND 22(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VALIDITY OF RULES 74 AND 76 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CONDUCT OF BUSINESS OF THE U.P. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - POWER OF SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, LUCKNOW, TO RECEIVE AND DETAIN THE PETITIONER - MALA FIDES - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was detained in the District Jail, Lucknow, under a warrant issued by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Uttar Pradesh, for contempt of the Legislative Assembly. The petitioner challenged the legality of his detention on various grounds, including that the Legislative Assembly did not possess any penal jurisdiction and that his detention violated Articles 21, 22(1), and 22(2) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Legislative Assembly had the power to punish for contempt by virtue of Article 194(3) of the Constitution, which conferred upon it the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Court further held that the petitioner's detention was not violative of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, as the provisions of Part III of the Constitution, including Article 22, were not applicable to a case falling under Article 194(3). The Court also held that the petitioner's conviction did not violate Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution or the principles of natural justice, as the Legislative Assembly was the master of its own procedure and the sole judge of whether its contempt had been committed. The Court further held that the Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow, had the power to receive and detain the petitioner on the basis of the warrant issued by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. Finally, the Court held that there was no evidence of mala fides on the part of the Legislative Assembly in punishing the petitioner for contempt.
Issues: 1. Whether the Legislative Assembly had the power to punish for contempt. 2. Whether the petitioner's detention was violative of Article 22(2) of the Constitution. 3. Whether the petitioner's conviction violated Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution or the principles of natural justice. 4. Whether the Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow, had the power to receive and detain the petitioner on the basis of the warrant issued by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. 5. Whether there was any evidence of mala fides on the part of the Legislative Assembly in punishing the petitioner for contempt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Legislative Assembly had the power to punish for contempt by virtue of Article 194(3) of the Constitution, which conferred upon it the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. 2. The petitioner's detention was not violative of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, as the provisions of Part III of the Constitution, including Article 22, were not applicable to a case falling under Article 194(3). 3. The petitioner's conviction did not violate Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution or the principles of natural justice, as the Legislative Assembly was the master of its own procedure and the sole judge of whether its contempt had been committed. 4. The Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow, had the power to receive and detain the petitioner on the basis of the warrant issued by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. 5. There was no evidence of mala fides on the part of the Legislative Assembly in punishing the petitioner for contempt.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to surrender to his bail and serve out the remaining portion of the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the Legislative Assembly.
G.C. MATHUR, J. : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus setting the petitioner at liberty.
2. The petitioner had been detained in the District Jail, Lucknow, under a warrant issued over the signature of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Uttar Pradesh, showing that the petitioner had been convicted for contempt of the Legislative Assembly and sentenced to seven days' imprisonment. This petition was filed on March 19, 1964, before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The petition was admitted on the same day and an interim order was made directing the petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each and a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Lucknow, it may be mentioned that on March 19, 1964 the petitioner had served six days out of the sentence of seven days and only one day's imprisonment remained to be suffered by him.
3. There is no real controversy as to the facts of the case. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit which gives the facts in detail. A pamphlet had been published and circulated in Gorakhpur as well as in the precincts of the Legislative Assembly, making allegations of corruption etc. against one Narsingh Narain Pandey (a member of the Legislative Assembly). A complaint was made by Narsingh Narain Pandey and others in the Legislative Assembly that this amounted to a breach of the privilege of Narsingh Narain Pandey and amounted to contempt of the Legislative Assembly. The question was referred to the Privileges Committee and the Privileges Committee issued notices to four persons, namely, the petitioner (Keshav Singh), Shyam Narain Singh, Hub Lal Dubey and Mahatam Singh. Out of these four persons, it was alleged that the petitioner, Shyam Narain Singh and Hub Lal Dubey had printed and distributed the said pamphlet and Mahatam Singh had distributed the pamphlet at the gate leading to the lobby of the House. The Privileges Committee found the petitioner, Shyam Narain Singh and Hub Lal Dubey guilty of the contempt of the House and recommened that they be reprimanded. Thereafter the Assembly passed a resolution that a reprimand be administered to the petitioner, Shyam Narain Singh and Hub Lal Dubey for having committed contempt of the Assembly by printing and publishing the pamphlet. Notices were issued to these three persons to appear before the Assembly to receive the reprimand. Shyam Narain Singh and. Hub Lal Dubey appeared before the Assembly on. February 19, 1964, and received the reprimand but the petitioner failed to appear before the Assembly, in spite of being repeatedly required to do so, alleging inability to procure money to pay the fare for the necessary railway journey. Thereupon-respondent No. 1 (the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) issued a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner and on March 13, 1964, the Marshal of the Assembly arrested the petitioner at Gorakhpur and on March 14, 1964, produced him at the Bar of the Legislative Assembly. The petitioner was asked his same by the Speaker repeatedly but he would not answer any question at all. He further refused to face the Speaker. After the reprimand; had been administered, the Speaker brought to the-notice of the Assembly a letter dated March 11, 1964, written by the petitioner to the Speaker in which he stated that he protested against the sentence of reprimand and further stated that the contents of the pamphlet were correct and that as brutal attack had been made on democracy by issuing"Nadirshahi Farman" (warrant) upon him. The petitioner admitted having written this letter. Respondent No. 3 (Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani) moved, a motion that the petitioner be awarded seven days' imprisonment for having committed another contempt of the House. The Assembly thereupon passed a resolution that"Keshav Singh be sentenced to imprisonment for seven days for
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
