REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 86 OF 2004

RAMDAS ATHAWALE

…

PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

…

RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

This writ application under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by a Member of Lok

Sabha, challenging the validity of the proceedings in the

Lok Sakha commencing from 29^th January, 2004 on the ground

that the President has not addressed both Houses of

Parliament as envisaged under Article 87 of the

Constitution. The prayer in the writ petition is to

issue appropriate Writ or direction or order declaring

that the Session of the Lok Sabha called by the Notice

dated January 20, 2004 is the first Session in the year

2004; and the proceedings of the Lok Sabha pursuant to

the Notice dated 20^th January, 2004 are unconstitutional,

illegal, null and void.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the Session

commenced on 29^th January, 2004 was the first Session of

the Lok Sabha in the year 2004, and there was no

address by the President informing the Parliament, the

cause of its summons as provided for and required under

Article 87 (1) of the Constitution of India. The

contention of the petitioner was that the “first

Session” means, the Session, which is held first in

point of time in a given year. According to him, the

Session, which commenced on 29^th January, 2004 was the

first Session of the House of the year 2004. The

sittings thereafter continued up to 5^th February, 2004.

3. There is no dispute before us that the Fourteenth

Session of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha commenced on 2^nd

December, 2003 and was adjourned sine die on 23^rd

December, 2003. Thereafter on 20^th January, 2004, the

Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, by way of a Notice

informed all the Members of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha,

duly stating that under Rule 15 of the Rules of

Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the

Speaker has directed that the Lok Sabha, which was

adjourned sine die on 23^rd December, 2003 will resume

its sittings on 29^th January, 2004.

2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in

terms of mandatory requirement as provided for in

Article 87 (1) of the Constitution of India, the

President has to address both Houses of Parliament at

the commencement of the Session every year and inform

the Parliament of the causes of its summons. It was

submitted that the commencement of the first Session of

each year has to be with reference to the first Session

of each year and year shall mean a year reckoned

according to British calendar. The contention was that

the sittings of the Lok Sabha from 29^th January, 2004

were unconstitutional or it could not have been

assembled at all in the absence of special address of

both the Houses of Parliament by the President. The

House of People could have assembled only after the

special address by the President.

5. The learned Attorney General submitted that in the

instant case the Winter Session of Parliament had

commenced on 2^nd December, 2003 and was adjourned sine

die on 23^rd December, 2003. The House resumed sitting

of that adjourned Session in pursuance of the Notice of

the Secretary General dated 20^th January, 2004 under

Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of

Business in Lok Sabha. It was submitted that the

sitting commenced on 29^th January, 2004 was not the

commencement of a new Session, but was a continuation

3

of Winter Session, which was adjourned on 23^rd December,

2003. The learned Attorney General further submitted

that the word “first Session” of the year in Article 87

cannot refer to the resumption of the adjourned

Session. It must refer to a new Session.