Judgement

S. R. DAS, CJI. : The petitioner before us, who is a citizen of India, is by profession a journalist and has at all material times been and is still working as the editor of the Searchlight, one of the well-known English daily newspapers having a large circulation in Patna and other places in the State of Bihar. The first respondent has at all material times been and is the Chief Minister of the State of Bihar and the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The Committee of Privileges has been impleaded as the second respondent as if it is a legal entity entitled to sue or to be sued in its name. The third respondent is called and described as the Secretary to the Bihar Legislative Assembly as if it also is a legal entity but the incumbent of that office has not been named in the cause title. As no objection has been taken to the way the second and the third respondents have been impleaded as parties nothing further need be said about the propriety of such procedure.

2. This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution raises several important questions of far reaching effect. It came to be filed in the following circumstances : In his speech made in the Bihar legislative Assembly on 30th May 1957 in course of the general discussion on the Budget for the year 1957-58 Shri Maheshwar Prasad Narayan Sinha, a Congress member of that Assembly, delivered what has been described as "one of the bitterest attacks against the way the chief Minister was conducting the administration of the State". The Chief Minister, who also belongs to the Congress party, is the first respondent before us. Shri Maheshwar Prasad Narayan Sinha referred to the way the Chief Minister, according to him, was being guided by the advice of a gentleman who was well understood by all to be Shri Mahesh Prasad Sinha, who was an exminister of Bihar and had been defeated at the last general elections. The member referred, as common knowledge, to the activities of Shri Mahesh Prasad Sinha in the selection of Ministers and the formation of the Ministry as also to the glaring instances of encouragement of corruption by the Government by amongst other things, the transfer of a Muslim District Engineer from Darbhanga to Muzaffarpur for exploiting that officer s influence on the Muslim voters of Muzaffarpur. Similar reference was made to the case of a District and Sessions Judge who, notwithstanding the recommendation for his discharge made by the Chief Justice after a regular judicial enquiry had been held by a High Court Judge, was ordered only to be transferred to another place on the intervention of Shri Mahesh Prasad Sinha. The member strongly criticised the appointment of Shri Mahesh Prasad Sinha as the Chairman of the Bihar State Khadi Board as having been made only to enable him to stay in Patna where residential accommodation at Bailey Road had been procured for him. The distribution of portfolios amongst the ministers did not also escape strictures from this member. There is no dispute-indeed it is admitted in para. 6 of the present petition - that immediately after Shri Maheshwar Prasad Narayan Sinha referred to the question of appointment of the Chairman of the Khadi Board, a point of order was raised by another member of the Assembly, Shri Satendra Narain Agarwal, and the Speaker stated as follows :-

"Mahesh Babu ke Sambandh Me Jitni Baten Kahi Gain Uske Bare Me Maine Kah Diya Ki Us Tarah Ki Bat Ko Proceeding Se Nikal Diya Jayega Lekin State Khadi Board Ke Chairman Ke Bare Me Jo Kuch Kahenge We Karyawahi Me Rahenge or Iske Bishai Me Manniya Sadasya Ko Kahane Ka Hak Hai."

which translated into English means roughly :-

"I have already ruled with reference to whatever has been said about Mahesh Babu that such words would be expunged from the proceedings but that whatever may be said with reference to the Chairmanship of the State Khadi Board will remain in the proceedings and the Hon ble member has the right to speak on that