1966 Supreme(MP) 97

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and R. J. Bhave, J.
YESHWANT RAO MEGHAWALE - Appellant
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 204 Of 1966
Decided On : 08/29/1966

Headnote:(1) Constitution of India - Art. 194(3) - power and privilege of the Legislative Assembly-power of the High Court-the High Court has jurisdiction to enquire whether the power or privilege claimed by the Assembly exists-if it is found that the power or privilege exists the High Court cannot question the decision of the House or its Speaker-Legislative Assembly and its Secretary are amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court.

       The first part of clause (3) of Art. 194 enables the Legislature to define by Jaw its powers, privileges and immunities and of the members and the committees of a House of the Legislature, There is till now no such legislation. The second part provides that until the powers, privileges and immunities of the House are so defined, the powers privileges and immunities of the House shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of its members and committees at the commencement of the Constitution. The language of Article 194(3) is plain enough to show that whenever a power or privilege is claimed by the House there must be an enquiry whether that power or privilege was a subsisting one in the House of Commons on 26th January 1950 and was recognized by the English Courts. This enquiry can clearly be by the Court. AIR 1965 SC 745 relied on. [Para 10]

       But once a privilege is found to exist, it is for the House to judge of the occasion and of the manner of its exercise. The Court cannot interfere with an erroneous decision by the House or its Speaker in respect of a breach of its privilege. AIR 1959 SC 395 relied on.

       [Para 11]

       As the High Court has power to enquire into the existence of a power or privilege claimed by the House, it is idle to contend that the M. P. Legislative Assembly and its Secretary are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court. [Para 11]

       (2) Constitution of India - Art. 212(1) - proceedings of the Legislature-validity cannot be questioned on procedural defects.

       The validity of the proceedings in the Legislature leading to the passing of the resolution of expelling a member cannot be questioned in the High Court on the ground that the resolution was passed without giving -them any opportunity to explain. Such objection cannot be entertained in view of Art. 212 (1) of the constitution. [Para 11]

       3. Constitution of India-Arts. 194 (3), 190. 191 & 208(1)-right of the Assembly to expel a member-is the same as of the House of Commons -seat of a member does not become vacant only as mentioned in Arts. 190 and 191 - expulsion of a member is no disqualification to contest the seat again-absence of rules under Art. 208(1) - power of Legislature to expel its member not taken away.

       In order to determine the question whether the M. P. Assembly bad the power of expelling the two petitioners rendering their seats vacant, it is first necessary to consider the language of clause (3) of Article 194 of the Constitution. The latter part of that clause says that until the powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislature are defined by an Act of the Legislature, the powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislature shall be those of the House of Commons of the British Parliament. The language of clause (3) is plain, unambiguous and apposite for vesting the Legislature with all the powers, privileges and immunities enjoyed by the House of Commons. The language is explicit in what it directs. The totality of the powers, privileges and immunities given to the State Legislature under Article 194 (3) can be cut down by denying to the Legislature a certain power, privilege or immunity enjoyed by the House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution only if it is necessary to do so for reconciling Article 194 (3) with other provisions of the Constitution. AIR 196 SC 745 relied on, 1950 SCR 88 referred to.

       [Para 17]

       The rights and privileges, which the House of Commons has, are necessary to maintain its independence of action and dignity of its position; that it has the privilege of completely controlling the conduct of its members; and that the right which the House of Commons has of providing for its own proper constitution is in addition to the privileges it has of completely controlling the conduct of its members. One of the ways in which the conduct of its members is controlled by the House of Commons is by exercise of the power of expulsion against him. [Para 20]

       Articles 190 and 191 deal with disqualifications of members and the result of the disqualifications. They are not general provisions dealing exhaustively with all cases of vacation of seats. When a member is expelled by a House, he does not become subject to any disqualification. He is entitled to contest the election again and it is open to his constituency to re-elect him. The exercise of the power of expulsion by the Legislature does not create a disqualification. Thus, articles 190 and 191 have no bearing in the construction of Article 194(3) and do not in any way touch the power of the State Legislature to expel a member so as to render his seat vacant. Merely because those articles do not provide for the seat of a member becoming vacant on his expulsion, it does not follow that the Legislature has no power to expel a member and render his seat vacant.

       It cannot be contended with any degree of force that as there is no express provision in the Constitution providing for a member's seat becoming vacant as a result of his expulsion by the State Legislature, the right or privilege of expelling a member cannot be claimed by the Legislature. So far as the exercise of the power of expulsion by the State Legislature is concerned, Article 194 (3) operates quite independently of Arts. 190 and 191 or any other article. These is nothing in the Constitution affording any ground or justification for subtracting from the powers, privileges and immunities declared as belonging to the State Legislature the power of expelling a member having the result of making vacant the seat of He member expelled. [Para 24]

       The absence of rule is in no way indicative of the fact that the Legislature has not the power of expelling a member rendering his seat vacant or of precluding the exercise of the power. The powers, privileges and immunities vested in the State Legislature by virtue of Article 194 (3) are not contingent upon a House of Legislature exercising its authority under Article 208 (1) of the Constitution of making rules for regulating its procedure and conduct of its business. Article 194(3) has an operation which is independent of the exercise of the power under Article 208 (1). Therefore, even if no rule has been framed by the Assembly under Article 208(1) with respect to the mode in which the power of expulsion may be exercised by the House, yet it has the authority to exercise that power vested in it under Article 194(3). [Para 25]