Imp PDF
Imp PDF
Imp PDF
Versus
JUDGMENT
P.Sathasivam, CJI.
1
Page 1
Company alleging irregularity in the construction work
4) Brief facts
2
Page 2
(a) An anonymous complaint was received on 21.06.2005
order to construct the said road, one hundred trees had been
lowest tenderer and the trees were cut only after obtaining
3
Page 3
(b) On 22.12.2006, again a complaint was filed by one Shri
4
Page 4
administrative, technical and budgetary sanctions by
5
Page 5
Sabha, Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 respectively on
available with the office of the Lokayukta and stated that the
by 07.09.2007.
6
Page 6
13.09.2007 and 18.09.2007 respectively, the Legal Advisor –
7
Page 7
Hon’ble Speaker nor any inquiry was conducted by the
in the FIR.
Respondent No.4 sent six letters stating that the reply dated
Contentions:
8
Page 8
6) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the
privilege is alleged?
Members?
9
Page 9
directing them to appear before the Lokayukt (as per the
as well as on merits.
10
Page 10
8) Before considering rival contentions and the legal
Act:-
11
Page 11
Section 2(a) of the Lokayukt Act defines “officer” in the
following manner:-
(i) Minister;
12
Page 12
(ii) a person having the rank of a Minister but shall not
include Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Madhya
Pradesh Vidhan Sabha;
13
Page 13
role of the Lokayukt and the Up-Lokayukt in the following
terms:-
following offences:-
(b) Offences under Sections 409 and 420 and Chapter XVIII
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (No. XLV of 1860) when
they are committed, attempted or abused by public
14
Page 14
servants or employees of a local authority or a statutory
corporation, when such offences adversely affect the
interests of the State Government or the local authority or
the statutory corporation, as the case may be;
15
Page 15
Secretary, Vidhan Sabha giving administrative approval
works:
16
Page 16
(c) Construction of road from Rotary to Rs. 12.00
Secretariat
Total sanctioned amount Rs. 204.53
17
Page 17
construction, but the administrative approval
got executed.
be carried out.
18
Page 18
(v) The Controller Buildings, Capital Project (Vidhan
the rules.
19
Page 19
maintenance works within the Vidhan Sabha premises. On
revealed:
No. 21, main head 2217, sub main head 01, minor head
20
Page 20
dated 21.03.2005 that administrative approval had
Environment Department.
21
Page 21
letter dated 31.07.2007 addressed to the Principal Secretary,
construction works were not with him and that such type of
22
Page 22
Buildings, Vidhan Sabha, Capital Project Administration were
Process Server to wait till 4.00 p.m. Later, the P.A. told the
23
Page 23
18) Thereafter, D.O. letter dated 14.08.2007 was received
That was the reason why the Speaker had not granted
24
Page 24
(d) Under the provisions of Section 2(g)(ii) of the Lokayukt
Lokayukt.
07.09.2007.
25
Page 25
21) Scrutiny note was prepared by the Legal Advisor, Mrs.
accepted;
26
Page 26
(d) for new construction works of the value of Rs.173.54
to do so;
27
Page 27
make proper assessment while quoting rates. This throws
300 meters. For this small area, work was split up into
to still another;
28
Page 28
(iii) Cement concrete road was constructed for a small
part of the same road. For this small part of the road
contractor;
Government.
SPE.
29
Page 29
22) The SPE, thereafter, registered Crime Case No. 33/07
30
Page 30
the Speaker, Respondent No. 1 nor any inquiry was
31
Page 31
consideration of the Hon’ble Speaker, submitted that the
maintainable.
32
Page 32
the House, the petitioners may not be in a position to
“…. In the first place, it ignores the plain fact that this
notice, calling upon the appellant company to forthwith get
itself registered as a dealer, and to submit a return and to
deposit the tax in a treasury in Bihar, places upon it
considerable hardship, harassment and liability which, if
33
Page 33
the Act is void under article 265 read with article 286
constitute, in presenti, an encroachment on and an
infringement of its right which entitles it to immediately
appeal to the appropriate Court for redress. In the next
place, as was said by this Court in Commissioner of
Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, [1952] 3 SCR
135 when an order or notice emanates from the State
Government or any of its responsible officers directing a
person to do something, then, although the order or notice
may eventually transpire to be ultra vires and bad in law, it
is obviously one which prima facie compels obedience as a
matter of prudence and precaution. It is, therefore, not
reasonable to expect the person served with such an order
or notice to ignore it on the ground that it is illegal, for he
can only do so at his own risk and that a person placed in
such a situation has the right to be told definitely by the
proper legal authority exactly where he stands and what
he may or may not do.
34
Page 34
3 SCR 338, which is a three-Judge Bench decision, this Court
Co. Ltd., Calcutta had brought into India from U.S.A. a large
The objection of the other side was that the appellant had
approached the High Court at the notice stage and the same
35
Page 35
“…..The respondent proposed to take action under Section
167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, read with Section 3(2) of
the Act. It cannot be denied that the proceedings under
the said sections are quasi-judicial in nature. Whether a
statute provides for a notice or not, it is incumbent upon
the respondent to issue notice to the appellants disclosing
the circumstances under which proceedings are sought to
be initiated against them. Any proceedings taken without
such notice would be against the principles of natural
justice. In the present case, in our view, the respondent
rightly issued such a notice wherein specific acts
constituting contraventions of the provisions of the Acts for
which action was to be initiated were clearly mentioned.
Assuming that a notice could be laconic, in the present
case it was a speaking one clearly specifying the alleged
act of contravention. If on a reading of the said notice, it is
manifest that on the assumption that the facts alleged or
allegations made therein were true, none of the conditions
laid down in the specified sections was contravened, the
respondent would have no jurisdiction to initiate
proceedings pursuant to that notice. To state it differently,
if on a true construction of the provisions of the said two
sections the respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate
proceedings or make an inquiry under the said sections in
respect of certain acts alleged to have been done by the
appellants, the respondent can certainly be prohibited from
proceeding with the same. We, therefore, reject this
preliminary contention.”
paragraph is relevant:
36
Page 36
by Section 8B of the Act and compelling them to enter the
witness box on the dates in question was discriminatory
and the orders directing complaint being filed against the
petitioners were illegal, it is apparently a case involving
infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In
such a situation the power of this Court to pass an
appropriate order in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution cannot be seriously
doubted particularly having regard to the special facts and
circumstances of this case. On the orders directing filing of
complaints being held to be invalid the consequential
complaints and the proceedings thereon including the
orders of the Magistrate issuing summons cannot survive
and it is in this view of the matter that by our order dated
18th August, 1988 we have quashed them. As regards the
submission that it was not a fit case for interference either
under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution inasmuch
as it was still open to the petitioners to prove their
innocence before the Magistrate, suffice it to say that in
the instant case if the petitioners are compelled to face
prosecution in spite of the finding that the orders directing
complaint to be filed against them were illegal it would
obviously cause prejudice to them. Points (v), (vi) and (vii)
are decided accordingly.”
37
Page 37
that no proceeding was initiated against Hon’ble Speaker or
submissions.
38
Page 38
matter and on finding that a prima facie case under the
under:
(1) ***
(2) ***
39
Page 39
34) Article 194 is similar to Article 105 of the Constitution,
the above Article provides that until the same are so defined
40
Page 40
which apply to him as much and perhaps more closely in
that capacity, as they apply to other subjects. Privileges of
Parliament do not place a Member of parliament on a
footing different from that of an ordinary citizen in the
matter of the application of laws unless there are good and
sufficient reasons in the interest of Parliament itself to do
so.
Vidhan Sabha for the purposes of the Lokayukt Act fall in the
41
Page 41
legislative provisions would apply without any
apply. The laws would apply to all such persons unless the
03.01.1955, observed:
42
Page 42
39) The scope of the privileges enjoyed depends upon the
need for privileges, i.e., why they have been provided for.
43
Page 43
Parliament or against captive or capricious parliamentary
majorities of the moment;
are those rights without which the House cannot perform its
44
Page 44
Thus, enquiry or investigation into an allegation of corruption
prosecution.
stated, thus:
45
Page 45
The detention of members in Ireland in 1918 and 1922
under the Defence of the Realm Regulations and the Civil
Authorities (Special Powers) Act, the speaker having been
informed by respectively the Chief Secretary of the Lord
Lieutenant and the secretary to the Northern Ireland
Cabinet, was communicated by him to the House.”
46
Page 46
and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or
individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the
land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the
ordinary law. The particular privileges of the House of
Commons have been defined as
‘the sum of the fundamental rights of the House and
of its individual Members as against the prerogatives
of the Crown, the authority of the ordinary courts of
law and the special rights of the House of Lords’.
… …. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are
‘absolutely necessary for the due execution of its
powers’. They are enjoyed by individual Members,
because the House cannot perform its functions without
unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by
each House for the protection of its Members and the
vindication of its own authority and dignity (May’s
Parliamentary Practice, pp. 42-43).”
47
Page 47
This privilege is expressed in three ways, first by the
order of new writs to fill vacancies that arise in the
Commons in the course of a Parliament; secondly, by
the trial of controverted elections; and thirdly, by
determining the qualifications of its members in cases
of doubt (May’s Parliamentary Practice, p. 175). This
privilege again, admittedly, cannot be claimed by the
House. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that all
powers and privileges which were possessed by the
House of Commons at the relevant time can be claimed
by the House.”
48
Page 48
15th Edn. 1950, p. 78 that “the privilege from freedom from
arrest is not claimed in respect of criminal offences or
statutory detention” and that the said freedom is limited to
civil clauses, and has not been allowed to interfere with the
administration of criminal justice or emergency legislation.
Chair ruled that since the members were arrested under the
49
Page 49
character or conduct in his capacity as a member of the
of privilege.
50
Page 50
51) Successive Speakers have, however, held that an
51
Page 51
Members, in case of arrest of employees of the Legislature
process of law.
54) The officers working under the office of the Speaker are
52
Page 52
55) The law applies equally and there is no privilege which
53
Page 53
completely uncalled for, illegal and unconstitutional. The
57) Thus, it is amply clear that the Assembly does not enjoy
58) Thus, from the above, it is clear that neither did the
54
Page 54
Simply because the officers belong to the office of the
of the Act do not cease to apply to them. The law does not
did not in any way affect the privileges which were being
55
Page 55
enjoyed by the Assembly and its members. The action of the
Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and as per
provisions of the Act and have not done anything against the
and his officers were entitled and duty bound to carry out
56
Page 56
investigation by the Special Police Establishment under the
that while dealing with the first complaint (E.R. 127/05), the
57
Page 57
64) On behalf of the petitioners, it is pointed out that the
interest but for the benefit of the persons involved who all
the House and as such the said action cannot constitute any
58
Page 58
and the Deputy Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan
differentiation.
privilege.
with him to the police. In other words, every citizen who has
59
Page 59
knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence has a
evidence.
……….…………………………CJI.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
………….…………………………J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
………….…………………………J.
(SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 25, 2014.
60
Page 60