Case Brief: Keshav Singh vs. Speaker, Legislative Assembly U.P. and Ors.
| Case Name | Keshav Singh vs. Speaker, Legislative Assembly U.P. and Ors. |
| Citation | (1965) SCC Online All 355: AIR 1965 All 349: (1965) 2 Cri LJ 170. |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Bench | J.N. Takru and G.C. Mathur |
| Appellants | Keshav Singh |
| Respondents | U.P. Legislative Assembly |
| Decided on | 10 March 1965 |
Introduction
In 1964, the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly asserted its constitutional authority by claiming the privilege, under Article 194(3) of the Constitution, to penalize individuals who disobeyed it. This claim prompted the Assembly to order the arrest and detention of two judges from the Allahabad High Court. The judges, having heard Keshav Singh’s Habeas Corpus petition and issued an interim order for his release on bail, were targeted after the petitioner’s arrest on a warrant issued by the Assembly’s Speaker. Alleging a breach of constitutional authority, Singh petitioned the High Court, contending that the Assembly exceeded its powers in punishing his contempt. Keshav Singh’s Habeas Corpus petition sought the President’s intervention in bringing grave constitutional concerns to the attention of the Supreme Court of India. The resolution of these issues awaited the Supreme Court’s deliberation before the Allahabad High Court could proceed with Keshav Singh’s case.
Brief Facts
Keshav Singh, a member of the Socialist Party, faced accusations of disseminating a leaflet that criticized Narsingh Narain Pandey, a Congress Party legislator, along with his two friends. Upon the speaker of the legislative assembly reviewing the pamphlet, he asserted that it infringed upon the privilege and dignity of Narsingh Narain Pandey, constituting a blatant contempt of the Assembly. Consequently, Keshav Singh and his supportive colleagues were directed to appear before the Lucknow assembly to account for their actions.
 When questioned by the legislative assembly in Lucknow about the allegations, Singh chose to remain silent. The assembly, deeming that unresolved matters should be addressed forcefully after Singh’s defense, convicted him. Singh, contesting his conviction, affirmed the leaflet’s contents, criticized the authoritarian nature of the arrest warrant, and, consequently, Chief Minister Sucheta Kripalani subjected him to seven days ‘ house detention. Subsequently, he served a one-week sentence in prison. A day prior to his scheduled release, Singh’s legal representative filed a petition with the Allahabad High Court, seeking immediate release. The petition contended that Singh’s imprisonment was unlawful, as the assembly lacked the authority to detain him, and he was denied the opportunity to present a defense in court.
Issues before the Court
- Whether or not the legislative assembly possesses any penal jurisdiction and the authority to punish any person for its contempt?
- Whether or not the detention was violative of Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution and was illegal?
- Whether the conviction of the petitioner by the legislative assembly was in violation of the provisions of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and of the principles of natural justice?
- Whether or not the act of the legislative assembly in punishing the petitioner was malicious?
Arguments from the PetitionerÂ
The petitioner contended that the legislative assembly lacks the authority to impose criminal jurisdiction on individuals, as there is no corresponding legislation empowering such action. The act of the assembly in convicting the petitioner was deemed a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 and 22(1), as well as his inherent rights. Even if the assembly’s action were deemed constitutional, it still ran afoul of Article 22(2) of the constitution, as the petitioner was deprived of any opportunity to defend himself or present his case before detention. The petitioner asserted that the assembly’s conduct was malicious and driven by political animosity, given his affiliation with an opposing party. He further argued that his detention lacked a valid warrant or order, rendering it illegal. Apart from this, the superintendent of the district jail, Lucknow, had no power to receive and detain the petitioner based on the warrant issued by the house.
Arguments from the RespondentÂ
The respondent argued that Article 194(3) of the Constitution empowers the legislative assembly to punish individuals violating rules under criminal jurisdiction. They maintained that the petitioner, being from a political party different from the majority party in the house, does not substantiate any bad faith on the assembly’s part.
Government and police authorities asserted the lawfulness and justification of the petitioner’s detention, citing the National Security Act, 1980. They claimed the petitioner posed a threat to public safety, engaged in terrorist activities, and that his detention was crucial for maintaining public order. According to them, the petitioner had ample opportunities to defend himself before the advisory board, which recommended his detention under the NSA. They contended that all legal procedures were followed, ensuring no violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights.
Furthermore, the government argued that the legislative assembly, possessing penal jurisdiction under Article 194(3) and being a court of record, had the authority to punish for contempt. They emphasized that provisions of Part 3 of the Constitution were not relevant in cases falling under Article 194(3), asserting the latter takes precedence. The petitioner’s deprivation of personal liberty followed established legal procedures, and the superintendent of the jail had a legal obligation to receive and detain the petitioner according to the warrant issued by the speaker. The fact that the petitioner belonged to a different political party than the majority party in the house was deemed insufficient to indicate any malicious intent on the part of the assembly.
Decision
The court affirmed the legality of Keshav Singh’s detention, resulting in the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal. The court underscored the general presumption that any detention is prima facie considered illegal, yet it can be deemed justified by the authority issuing the order. In the present case, the District Magistrate, authorized to issue warrants under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, lawfully directed the detention.
The court further observed that there was no infringement of Article 21 or natural justice by the respondent, contending that the legislature had established rules to investigate complaints of breach of privileges. It asserted that the superintendent of the district jail acted within his jurisdictional limits in executing the warrant received from the speaker. The court reiterated that provisions in Part III of the constitution were irrelevant to a case under Article 194(3), emphasizing the precedence of Article 194(3) over fundamental rights in Part III.
The petitioner’s argument of mala fides regarding his committal by the assembly, based on political ill will and hatred, was rejected by the court. The court held that the mere affiliation of the person with a political party different from the majority party did not sustain a charge of mala fides against the assembly. The court disposed of Keshav Singh’s case and refused to infer mala fides in the assembly, emphasizing that the determination of contempt by the house was exclusively within its purview, and the court would not delve into questions of legality.
Additionally, the court dismissed the petitioner’s claim that the detention was malicious, citing the lack of supporting material. It emphasized the petitioner’s failure to provide evidence establishing malicious intent. The court also asserted that the petitioner’s rights under Article 22 of the Constitution were not violated, as he had been brought before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his detention.
The court noted that the grounds for detention had been communicated to the petitioner, who had the opportunity to make a representation against the detention. Conclusively, the court held that the detention order was founded on valid reasons, and the District Magistrate had exercised due consideration before issuing the order.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the petitioner had not contested the validity of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, under which the detention was ordered. It stressed that the Supreme Court had consistently upheld the Act’s validity in various judgments, rendering the petitioner’s challenge to the Act’s validity untenable.
Analysis
The Supreme Court’s verdict is rooted in the principle that the democratic state’s three branches—legislative, executive, and judiciary—must operate in a synchronized and harmonious manner. Emphasizing the need for these organs to work cohesively, the Court highlighted the significance of their collaborative functioning. Article 211 of the Constitution explicitly prohibits State Legislatures from deliberating on the conduct of a High Court Judge within the Assembly, safeguarding the judge from legislative actions related to the discharge of duties.
Additionally, the Supreme Court asserted that the rights of citizens to approach the courts and the entitlement of advocates to assist in this process should not be constrained by Articles 105(3) or 194(3). The Court clarified that the House of Commons, acting as a supreme court of record rather than a legislature, can only commit an individual for contempt through a non-justifiable general warrant. However, due to the existence of Fundamental Rights and the doctrine of judicial review, particularly embodied in Articles 32 and 226, empowering and obliging the Supreme Court and High Courts to enforce Fundamental Rights, Parliament and State Legislatures in India cannot claim a similar privilege. Consequently, a court can scrutinize an unwritten House warrant as a legislative order penalizing contempt.
Through the Reference to the President, the Supreme Court aimed not only to acknowledge the House’s authority to punish contempt or breach of privilege but also to underscore that if a House were to assert the right to scrutinize a judge’s conduct, it would severely compromise judicial independence. Presently, the Committee on Privileges conducts an inquiry, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to present their case before reaching a decision.
Conclusion
The petitioner’s plea was rejected by the court, which concluded that the detention of Keshav Singh was legal. The court emphasized that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of unlawful detention and presented no evidence to support allegations of bad faith. Additionally, the court determined that the detention order was legitimate and did not infringe upon the petitioner’s rights under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution.
References
http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/87y6x1IG.
