Back
2025 Supreme(Megh) 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
I.P. MUKERJI, CJ, W. DIENGDOH, J.
Adelbert Nongrum S/o Late Starwell Sunn - Appellant
Versus
The Speaker, Meghalaya Legislative Assembly - Respondent
W.A. No. 26 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2025
For the Appellants : P. Yobin, B. Ramsiej
For the Respondents: A. Kumar, E.R. Chyne
Court's writ jurisdiction does not extend to legislative proceedings under Article 212, preserving legislative autonomy unless actions are unconstitutional.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 212 - Separation of powers - Writ jurisdiction - The appellant, an MLA, challenged the Speaker's disallowance of a Special Motion regarding government expenditure which was premature as it awaited Committee review. The Speaker’s decision was found legal and within jurisdiction. (Paras 8-18)
(B) The Legislative Assembly operates with autonomy, and courts cannot interfere unless there is constitutional illegality. The validity of proceedings in the Legislature is protected under Article 212. (Paras 9-14)
(C) Courts cannot inquire into legislative procedures unless they are unconstitutional or exceed the legislature's jurisdiction. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a writ petition against the Speaker's disallowance of a Special Motion related to the MePDCL's audit report, claiming infringement of legislative rights after the Speaker informed him that the motion was under Committee consideration.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Speaker acted within jurisdiction, and the appellant's motion was premature awaiting Committee examination.
Issues: The jurisdiction of courts concerning legislative assembly proceedings and the legality of the Speaker's decision were key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the legislature operates autonomously under Article 212, and judicial intervention is limited to cases of unlawful actions. The Speaker’s decision was substantiated as it aligned with legislative procedure.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. definition of the appellant's initial grievances (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against the speaker's actions (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. writ petition and claims of infringement (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's jurisdiction over legislative matters (Para 9 , 14) |
| 5. precedents regarding article 212 and legislative procedure (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. legitimacy of the speaker's process and future actions (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. affirmation of the court's decision (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
I.P. MUKERJI, CJ.
1. This is an appeal by a member of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly (MLA) (“the appellant”). On 15th February, 2024, he presented a Special Motion before the Speaker which was disallowed by him under Rule 130A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Legislature.
2. The subject-matter of the Special Motion was a part of the CAG report on the social and economic sectors for the year ending 31st March, 2022. It deprecated an expenditure of Rs.156.14 crore made by the government company, Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation Limited (MePDCL) in awarding contracts under the Saubhagya scheme. The scheme was conceived by the Central government but its implementation was with the State government through the project implementing agency, Saubhagya. The fund was Central. The State government, in turn, implemented the scheme through MePDCL a body corporate controlled by it.
3. By a terse letter dated 19th February, 2024, the Commissioner and Secretary of the Assembly informed the appellant that the Special Motion had been “disallowed” by the Speaker as it was under consideration by the Public Accounts Committee. We do not know why in the body of the letter a reference was made to the Chief Minister as if the information was derived from him. Whether the report was considered by the Public Accounts Committee or not ought to have been within the knowledge of the Speaker.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant uses this reference to the Chief Minister to attack the bonafides of the Speaker, submitting that the Speaker was acting on the dictates of the Chief Minister.
5. We do not think so. It appears that quite unnecessarily, he sought confirmation of this information from the Chief Minister which was provided to him.
6. The appellant filed the instant writ petition [WP (C) No.99 of 2024] in this Court, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Speaker reflected in the letter dated 19th February, 2024. According to him, his request, for the Special Motion presented by him to be tabled, ought to have been acceded to and the Motion deliberated upon in the House. There was, according to him an infringement of his right as member of the legislative assembly, by the Speaker. The Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to compel the Speaker to table the Motion, it was contended.
7. The writ petition was heard extensively by a learned single judge of this Court. Two principal grounds were made out before his lordship.
8. The first was that under Article 212 of the Constitution of India, the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction had no jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute arising in the Legislative Assembly between a member of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly and the Speaker. Alternatively, it was argued that there was no illegality or irregularity in the decision of the Speaker, as the Special Motion could only be tabled after examination of it by the Public Accounts Committee of the Assembly was completed. As such, the alleged grievance of the writ petitioner was premature.
9. First, let me deal with the point of jurisdiction. Before anything else, the question which has to be decided by this Court is whether it has jurisdiction to decide this writ petition and the appeal connected with it. Article 212 of the Constitution of India is based on the high constitutional principle of separation of powers of the three organs of the government- executive, legislature and judiciary and complete autonomy of the Legislature in the condu
