Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI, B.P. SINHA, K. SUBBA RAO AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
M. S. M. Sharma, Petitioner
Versus
Sri Krishna Sinha and others, Respondents.
Petition No. 122 of 1958
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Basdeva Prasad, Advocate (with permission of the Court) and Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for Petitioner; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. B. K. P. Sinha and S. P. Varma, Advocates, with him), for Respondents ; (By Notice under Order 41, Rule 1, SC Rules) : Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor -General of India, for Attorney-General for India).
-both the Articles confer powers, privileges, immunities etc. to State Legislature and parliament respectively and are same as that of all powers and privileges of House of Commons at the date of commencement of Constitution.
-held, no privileges attached to press as such as distinct from freedom of citizen.
-see decision in M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395=1959 SCJ 925 = 1959 Supp. (1) SCR 806.
-held it would not be right to allow petitioner to raise the question which the respondent had no opportunity to reply.
-held, deprivation of personal liberty in a proceeding before privileges committee as per rules so framed under Article 208 and read with Article 194(3) would be deprivation of liberty in accordance with procedure established by law. The petitioner cannot complain violation of Fundamental Right under Article 21.
-held, deprivation of personal liberty in a proceeding before privileges committee as per rules so framed under Art. 208 and read with Art. 194(3) would be deprivation of liberty in accordance with procedure established by law. The petitioner cannot complain violation of Fundamental Right under Article 21.
-see decision in M.S. Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395 = 1959 SCJ 925 (See In Ref. under Art. 143 of Constitution, AIR 1965 S.C 745).
The majority held Article 194(3) is not expressly made subject to Article 19; the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons conferred by the latter part of Article 194(3) are not overridden by Article 19(1)(a), and Article 19(1)(a) must be read as subject to Article 194(3). (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
The majority held that the House of Commons possessed the privilege to prohibit publication of its proceedings, though in modern practice it is restricted to mala fide publication of garbled or unfaithful reports. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
The majority held that the House has the privilege to prohibit publication of that part of proceedings directed to be expunged by the Speaker, and publication of such expunged portions constitutes a breach of privilege. (Para 32 , 48 , 54 )
The majority held there was no substantive procedural violation, no allegation of mala fides against the Committee, and the House alone is the judge of whether a breach of privilege occurred. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 )
The majority held that the House alone is the judge of whether there has been any breach of its privilege, and the Court should not express opinion on that controversy at the stage of the petition. (Para 32 , 34 )
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
