Chandigarh: The Haryana Assembly on Friday passed a resolution to ignore the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s notice to Speaker Gyan Chand Gupta on a petition filed by Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) MLA Abhay Keshav Singh Vs UP Assembly Speaker K 1964 Cited the historical case of Singh Chautala.
The Keshav Singh case in 1964 provoked a constitutional crisis and for the first time defined the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature – the two major arms of democracy in India.
The present matter arose in the Haryana Assembly after Chautala filed a petition in the court. last month Against his two-day suspension from the House by Speaker Gupta.
During the ongoing budget session on 21 February, Gupta suspended Chautala for alleged unparliamentary behaviour. Chautala moved the HC the next day, seeking quashing of the suspension order. He described Gupta’s action as contrary to the rules of procedure and conduct of business in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha.
On February 23, the High Court had sought response from the Haryana Assembly Secretariat on Chautala’s petition.
On Friday, during assembly proceedings, Haryana Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kanwar Pal moved a resolution – a copy of which has been accessed by ThePrint – stating that the notice received by the secretariat from the High Court was contrary to the provisions of Article 212 was “an act of interference” with the Constitution and the internal proceedings of the House.
Article 212 Provided that the validity of any proceeding in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of alleged irregularity of procedure.
“According to the judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts from time to time and the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution, the courts cannot look into the proceedings of the legislatures,” where did it go The resolution, proposes that the HC’s notice “should be ignored and reply not filed”.
While passing the resolution by voice vote, Speaker Gupta cited some decisions of the Supreme Court including the Keshav Singh case.
Gupta pointed out that in the Keshav Singh case, the Supreme Court held under a Presidential Reference that Article 212(1) of the Constitution lays down that the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be questioned. ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure”.
He noted that the SC had also ruled that Article 212(2) confers immunity on “officers and members of a legislature in which powers are vested by or under the Constitution to regulate the procedure or conduct of business or to maintain order”. from being subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of those powers by the legislature”.
What was the Keshav Singh case that law students study in various universities across India today, and how does it underline the separation of powers under the Constitution? ThePrint explains.
Read also: Haryana MLAs will take training to understand the nuances of the budget for constructive debate
what happened in 1964
in his book titled the case that india forgotAuthor Chintan Chandrachud discusses the Keshav Singh case as the first of 10 that he raises.
In a 20-page discussion on the matter, Chandrachud says: “Who would have thought that a pamphlet distributed by a local politician would paralyze the administrative machinery, strain relations between state institutions and provoke a constitutional crisis? This is exactly what happened in 1964. It required the collective efforts of several Supreme Court judges, High Court judges, MPs and MLAs, and eventually the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India, to restore the balance.
Keshav Singh, a resident of Gorakhpur in UP, was a worker of the Socialist Party. He came into limelight after he, along with his associates, published and distributed the title ‘Middeeds of Congress MLA Narasimha Narayan Pandey Revealed’, in which he was accused of corruption.
Pandey complained to the then UP Assembly Speaker Madan Mohan Verma that the pamphlet violated the rights and privileges of immunity enjoyed by the Assembly and its members.
Singh and his associates were summoned to the assembly to receive reprimand for their act. While two of his comrades complied with the notice and appeared before the assembly on February 19, 1964, Singh failed to do so citing lack of funds to travel from Gorakhpur to Lucknow, Chandrachud pointed out in his book.
On the orders of the UP Legislative Assembly, Singh was arrested and produced before the House on March 14, 1964.
In the Assembly, despite the Speaker repeatedly asking Singh to confirm his name, he stood with his back to the chair and answered questions put to him in silence.
“The Speaker then brought to the notice of the Assembly a letter which would create further consternation among the Congress MLAs. Singh protested the reprimand and wrote a letter to the Speaker, confirming that the statements in the pamphlet (he had distributed) were accurate, and condemning the warrant for his arrest as ‘nadirshahi’ (tyrannical). , writes Chandrachud.
The then UP chief minister Sucheta Kriplani later moved a resolution in the state assembly for seven days’ imprisonment for Singh. The motion was passed and Singh was sent to jail.
However, a day before his release, a lawyer filed a habeas corpus petition on Singh’s behalf before the Allahabad High Court, seeking his immediate release. The plea argued that the detention was illegal, and that the Assembly did not have the power to send him to jail.
A High Court bench comprising Justice Nasirullah Baig and Justice GD Sehgal ordered that Singh be released on bail subject to certain conditions, including that he remain present in the court on future hearings of the case.
Taking the HC’s order as contrary to the separation of powers, the UP Assembly “passed a resolution with an overwhelming majority that Singh shall remain in jail and be brought back to the Assembly to answer the petition filed in the High Court”.
Speaker Verma also said that the High Court order curtailed the exclusive right of the Assembly to address violations of its own privileges.
The resolution further ordered that Singh’s advocate B Solomon, and Justices Baig and Sehgal, who had “breached the privileges of the Assembly”, be brought in custody before the Assembly to answer for their “indiscretion”.
Thus, a matter between a local leader and an MLA turned into a clash between two constitutional bodies.
SC steps in
Commenting on the clash, Chandrachud writes: “If the judges agreed to appear before the assembly, the episode would risk undermining the independence of the judiciary. On the other hand, if they appear and offer a strong defence, the House may be left with no choice but to refrain from further action, lest it be criticized for persecuting well-intentioned judges. Go
The two judges filed a petition before the Allahabad High Court arguing that the resolution passed by the UP Assembly was violative of Article 211 of the Constitution, which states that there shall be no discussion in the state legislature regarding conduct. Any Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court in the discharge of his duties.
A bench of 28 judges of the High Court (all except Justices Baig and Sehgal), the largest ever by any High Court or Supreme Court, heard the two-judge petition and refused to secure the execution of the arrest warrant. Stopped the government. against them.
The chain of events led to the intervention of the Central Government and it was decided that a Presidential reference be made so that the Supreme Court could pass an order to end the impasse. The stage was set for one of the most fascinating legal battles.
In 1965, the Supreme Court in its ruling Explained some important provisions of the constitution in the matter.
One was Article 194(3), which states that the powers, privileges and immunities of the State Legislature should be defined by law. However, until they are defined by law, they remain the same as the House of Commons of the UK.
Even before the court, Singh argued that parliamentary privileges were being exercised in violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Singh argued that in case of conflict between constitutional right and parliamentary prerogative, the former would prevail.
Another provision of the Constitution that was interpreted by the Supreme Court was Article 211. It was argued on behalf of the two judges that his presence was required to explain his conduct in the assembly resolution, which was violative of Article 211.
While pronouncing its judgement, the Supreme Court said that it was within the power of the High Court to consider Singh’s plea and release him on bail pending the verdict.
At the same time, the Supreme Court stated that “it is not denied … that the House of Commons has the power to commit its contempt”. In our opinion, considering the authority and the relevant provisions of the Constitution, it must be held that the Legislative Assembly has, by virtue of Article 194(3), have the same power as the Commons have”.
Deciding Singh’s fate, the Supreme Court said that since the Assembly had the power of imprisonment for contempt, the court would not go into the propriety and legality of proceedings in the UP Assembly.
Thus Singh was ordered back to jail to serve the remaining one day of his sentence.
(Editing by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Read also: Why is Haryana’s opposition demanding local development funds for MLAs- ‘Officials reject projects’