SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(Mad) 117

Madras High Court
K. VEERASWAMI,RAMAPRASADA RAO,RAGHAVAN
K.A.Mathialagan - Appellant
Versus
P.Srinivasan - Respondent
Decided On : 02/27/1973

Advocates:
N. C. Raghavachari, for Petitioner; M. K. Nambiar, K. K. Venugopal, V. Manivannan and Advocate General for Government Pleader, for Respondents.

The proceedings of the Assembly are not subject to judicial review under Article 212 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

The petitioner, Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, challenged the order of prorogation of the Assembly and the subsequent resolution passed by the Assembly for his removal from office. The Court held that the Governor had the power to prorogue the Assembly and that the resolution for the removal of the Speaker was validly passed in accordance with the rules of the Assembly. The Court also held that the proceedings of the Assembly were not subject to judicial review under Article 212 of the Constitution.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. On 14-11-1972, the Governor prorogued the Assembly. On 2-12-1972, the Assembly was summoned by the Governor and a resolution for the removal of the Speaker was passed. The petitioner challenged the order of prorogation and the resolution for his removal.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Governor had the power to prorogue the Assembly and that the resolution for the removal of the Speaker was validly passed in accordance with the rules of the Assembly. The Court also held that the proceedings of the Assembly were not subject to judicial review under Article 212 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the Governor had the power to prorogue the Assembly? 2. Whether the resolution for the removal of the Speaker was validly passed? 3. Whether the proceedings of the Assembly were subject to judicial review under Article 212 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Governor had the power to prorogue the Assembly under Article 174 (2) of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the resolution for the removal of the Speaker was validly passed in accordance with the rules of the Assembly. 3. The Court held that the proceedings of the Assembly were not subject to judicial review under Article 212 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition.

Judgement

RAMAPRASADA RAO, J. :- In these two writ petitions the petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 not to interfere in any manner with his right to continue to function as Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and also for a preventive injunction restraining the first respondent, the Deputy Speaker of the Assembly, from functioning as Speaker thereto, and by way of a consequential relief asks for the quashing of the notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 403 dated 2-12-1972 in Memo No. 22223/72-1 T. N. L. (B) Legislative Assembly III No. 676(a) of 1972, notifying the petitioner as having been removed from the Office of the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly.

2. Before the relevant facts as reflected in the affidavits filed by the parties are dealt with, certain events anterior to the controversial date, when the petitioner claims that his right to occupy the seat as Speaker of the Assembly has been taken away, have to be noticed. During the General Elections in 1971 the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam as a party was returned to power with a strength of 185 in the House of the Tamil Nadu Assembly as against the total strength of 235. The petitioner was one of the officers of the State Legislature chosen by the Assembly of the State to be the Speaker thereto and the first respondent as the Deputy Speaker thereof. In October, 1972, due to a rift in the party, some members including Sri M. G. Ramachandran, left the party and formed a new party known as Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party. As early as 30-10-1972, two members of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party gave notice of removal of the Speaker soon after the rift as above in the party. On 13-11-1972, the Assembly met in its usual session with the petitioner in the Chair as its Speaker. There were inter alia two motions which were to be discussed on that day. One such motion was a no confidence motion against the Government and the other for the removal of the Speaker himself. But the petitioner as such Speaker adjourned the Assembly to 5-12-1972. On the same day it appears that 183 members belonging to different political parties requested by means of a signed petition that the Speaker should resign at once since he had already lost the confidence of the majority of the Assembly. By then the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party was of the confirmed view that the speaker was actively participating with Sri M. G. Ramachandran, who for all practical purposes left the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party by then. In view of the pendency of the several important legislative businesses including financial matters, the Governor, exercising his powers under Art. 174 (2) of the Constitution of India, prorogued the Assembly on 14-11-1972, obviously for the purpose of enabling him to issue an urgent Ordinance.

The petitioner apprehending inconvenience filed on 16-11-1972 W. P. No. 2968 of 1972 challenging the order of prorogation on the ground of lack of good faith. Two other members of the Assembly thereafter joined the petitioner in such a common cause and questioned the right of the Governor to prorogue the Assembly. After the prorogation, on 16-11-1972, Sri N. Veerasami and a few others gave notice of resolution for the removal of the speaker to the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly, which was admittedly received by the petitioner. Whilst this was the position, the Governor on 28-11-1972, in exercise of his powers under Article 174 of the Constitution summoned the Assembly to meet on 2-12-1972. On 29-11-1972, the Governor sent a message to the Assembly under Art. 175 (2) listing the business to be transacted by the Assembly and requiring the Assembly inter alia to consider with all convenient despatch any other business for which notice had been given under the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules. I have already referred to one such notice of resolution for the removal of the Speaker gi

















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top