Supreme Court of India
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD ) & ORS.versusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 125
- Decided
- 25 February 2014
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
Officers of the Vidhan Sabha, including the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, are public servants subject to the Lokayukt and Prevention of Corruption Acts, and no legislative privilege shields them from investigation; therefore, the breach‑of‑privilege notices were quashed.
Summary
A complaint alleging irregularities in construction works at the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha was investigated by the Lokayukt, which referred the matter to the Special Police Establishment (SPE) under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Vidhan Sabha Secretary issued letters claiming a breach of legislative privilege against the Lokayukt and SPE officers. The petitioners challenged these letters, arguing that the officials were public servants subject to the Lokayukt Act and that no privilege protected them from investigation. The Supreme Court held that officers of the Assembly, including the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, are public servants within the meaning of the Lokayukt and Prevention of Corruption Acts, and that legislative privilege does not extend to shield them from criminal inquiry. Consequently, the breach‑of‑privilege notices were illegal, and the writ petition under Article 32 was allowed, quashing the letters.
Issues considered
- The extent to which the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and its officers enjoy legislative privilege in the context of a corruption investigation.
- Whether the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and other officers of the Vidhan Sabha are public servants under the Lokayukt Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Whether the breach‑of‑privilege notices issued by the Speaker constitute a violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the Speaker has jurisdiction to entertain a privilege complaint against the Lokayukt and SPE officers.
- Whether proceedings before the Lokayukt are deemed judicial proceedings under the IPC and Contempt of Courts Act.
Legislation cited
- Central Provinces and Berar Special Police Establishment Act, 1947s. 3, s. 4
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 244, s. 39(1)(iii), s. 61
- Constitution of Indias. 142, s. 194(3), s. 32
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 193, s. 228
- Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981s. 11(2), s. 11(3), s. 2(c), s. 2(g)
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 2(c)
Subjects
legislative privilegeLokayuktpublic servantPrevention of Corruption ActArticle 32Madhya Pradesh Vidhan SabhaSpecial Police Establishmentbreach of privilegejudicial proceedingconstitutional law
Judgment
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 242
A JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD ) & ORS.
v.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 613 of 2007)
FEBRUARY 25, 2014
8
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. RANJAN GOGOi AND
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]
MADHYA PRADESH LOKAYUKT EVAM
C UPLOKAYUKT ADHINIYAM, 1981:
s.2(g) of 1981 Act rlw s.2(c) of Prevention of Corruption
Act - 'Public servant' - Complaint to Lokayukt regarding
irregularities in certain construction works - Case registered
0 by SPE, Lokayukt Administration against Secretary, Vidhan
Sabha, Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha and other officers -
- Notice by Secretary Vidhan Sabha alleging breach of
privilege of Vidhan Sabha - Held: Inquiry or investigation into
an allegation of corruption against some officers of the
E Legislative Assembly cannot be said to be interfering with the
legislative functions of the Assembly - Officers working under
the office of the Speaker are also public servants within the
meaning of s.2(g) of the Lokayukt Act and s. 2 (c) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, the Lokayukt and
his officers are entitled and duty bound to make inquiry and
F investigation into the allegations made in any complaint filed
before them - Lokayukt organization has not made any inquiry
against the Members of the Legislative Assembly or the
Speaker or about their conduct -- Assembly does not enjoy
any privilege of a nature that may have the effect of restraining
G any inquiry or investigation against Secretary or Deputy
Secretary of Legislative Assembly.
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
H 242
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 243
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
Art. 32 rlw Art. 142 - On a complaint alleging irregularities A
in certain construction works, after inquiry, case registered by
SPE, Lokayukt Organisation against Secretary and Deputy
Secretary, Vidhan Sabha and other officers - Notice by
Secretary Vidhan Sabha to Lokayukt alleging breach of
privilege of Vidhan Sabha - Writ petition by Lokayukt - Held: B
Maintainable --For the application of provisions of Lokayukt
Act, and Prevention of Corruption Act, jurisdiction of Lokayukt
or the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment is for
all public servants and no privilege is available to the officials
and, in any case, they cannot claim any privilege more than c
an ordinary citizen to whom the provisions of the said Acts
apply - Privileges do not extend to the activities undertaken
outside the House on which the legislative provisions would
apply without any differentiation -- The action taken by
petitioners under the said Act cannot constitute a breach of
0
privilege of Legislative Assembly -- The impugned letters!
notices are quashed -- Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam
Uplokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981.
s. 11 (2) - Proceedings before Lokauykta - Held: Any
proceeding before Lokayukt shall be deemed to be a 'judicial E
proceeding within the meaning of ss. 193 and 228 /PC and
as per s. 11 (3), the Lokayukt is deemed to be a court within
the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Central
Provinces and Berar Special Police Establishment Act, 1947
-- Procedures and Conduct of Business Rules of the Madhya F
Pradesh Vidhan Sabha - Rule 164.
On 22.12.2006, a complaint was filed alleging
irregularities in certain construction works under the
control of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat. After receiving G
information from the Chief Engineer, Public Works
Department, petitioner No. 2, a member of the M.P. Higher
Judicial Service on deputation as Legal Advisor with
Lokayukt, found that it was a fit case to be sent to the
Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 3 S.C.R.
A Organisation for taking action in accordance with law.
Petitioner No.1 was in agreement with the said opinion.
Thereafter, Crime Case No. 33/07 was registered against
the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha (Respondent No.10), Deputy
Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, the then Administrator, the
s Superintending Engineer, the Capital Project
Administration and the Contractors on 06.10.2007. After
registration of the case, petitioner No.1 received the
impugned letters dated 15.10.2007 and 18.10.2007
alleging breach of privilege under Procedures and
c Conduct of. Business Rules 164 of the Madhya Pradesh
Vidhan Sabha against him and the officers of the Special
Police Establishment. By letter dated 23.10.2007, the
Secretary, Lokayukt explained the factual position stating
that no case of breach of privilege was made out and he
also pointed out that neither any complaint had been
0
received against the Speaker nor any inquiry was
conducted by the Lokayukt Organization against him nor
his name was found in the FIR. On 26.10.2007, the
Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, respondent No.4, sent six
letters .stating that the reply dated 23.10.2007 was not
E acceptable and that individual replies should be sent by
each of the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the
instant writ petition.
Allowing the petition, the Court
F
HELD:
Maintainability of the writ petition under Art. 32 of the
Constitution:
G 1. If it is established that the proposed actions are not
permissible involving infringement of Arts. 14 and 21 of
the Constitution, this Court is well within its power to
pass appropriate order in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Arts. 32 and 142 of the Constitution. Further, if the
H petitioners are compelled to face the privilege
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 245
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
proceedings before the Vidhan Sabha and that too in A
spite of the fact that no proceeding was initiated against
the Speaker or Members of the House but only relating
to the officers in respect of. contractual matters, and if
urgent intervention is not sought for by exercising
extraordinary jurisdiction, undoubtedly, it would cause B
prejudice to the petitioners. This Court, therefore, holds
that writ petition under Art. 32 is maintainable. [para 29-
30] [272-G-H; 273-A-C]
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs. The State C
of Bihar and Others, (1955) 2 SCR 603, East India
Commercial Co., Ltd., Calcutta and Another vs. The Collector
of Customs, Calcutta, [1963] 3 SCR 338, and Kiran Bedi &
Ors. vs. Committee of Inquiry & Anr. (1989) 1 SCR 20 -
referred to.
D
2.1 Under the provisions of s. 39(1)(iii) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every person who is aware
of the commission of an offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act is duty bound to give an information
available with him to the police. Every citizen, who has E
knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence,
has a duty to lay information before the police and to
cooperate with the investigating officer who is enjoined
to collect the evidence. [para 68] (288-E-G]
2.2 Petitioner No. 1 is the Lokayukt appointed under F
the provisions of the Madhy Pradesh Lokayukt Act Evam
Uplokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (Lokayukt Act), exercising
powers and functions as provided under Lokayukt Act.
In the course of the performance of the said functions,
the Lokayukt Organization received the complaint in G
question regarding certain irregularities in the award of
contracts. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, conducted
preliminary inquiry in the matter and on finding that a
prima facie case under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1980 was made out, the matter was referred to the SPE H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A established under the provisions of the Madya Pradesh
Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 to be dealt with
further, and thereafter, a case was registered by the said
Establishment under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. [para 32) [273-D-G]
B
2.3 In the matter of the application of laws,
particularly, the provisions of the Lokayukt Act and the
Prevention of Corruption Act, insofar as the jurisdiction
of the Lokayukt or the SPE established under the MP
C Special Establishment Act is concerned, all public
servants except the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of
the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha for the purposes of
the L.okayukt Act fall in the same category and cannot
claim any privilege more than an ordinary citizen to
whom the provisions of the said Acts apply. [para 36)
D [275-D-F]
2.4 The basic concept is that the privileges are those
rights without which the House cannot perform its
legislative functions. They do not exempt the Members
E from their obligations under any statute which continue
to apply to them like any other law applicable to ordinary
citizens. Thus, enquiry or investigation into an allegation
of corruption against some officers of the Legislative
Assembly cannot be said to be interfering with the
F legislative functions of the Assembly. No one enjoys any
privilege against criminal prosecution. The privileges are
available only insofar as they are necessary in order that
the House may freely perform its functions but do not
extend to the activities undertaken outside the House on
G which the legislative provisions would apply without any
differentiations. [para 36 and 41) [275-F-G; 278-C-D]
Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and
Others, 2007 (1) SCR 317 = (2007) 3 SCC 184, A. Kunjan
Nadar vs. The State, AIR 1955 Travancore-Cochin 154 -
H referred to.
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 247
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
2.5 The officers working under the office of the Speaker A
are also public servants within the meaning of s.2(g) of the
Lokayukt Act ands. 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
and, therefore, the Lokayuktand his officers are entitled and
duty bound to make inquiry and investigation into the
allegations made in any complaint f!led before them. As B
such, the initiation of action does not and cannot amount
to a breach of privilege of the Legislative Assembly, which
has itself conferred powers in the form of a statute to
eradicate the menace of corruption. It is, thus, clear that, no
privilege is available to the Legislative Assembly to give c
immunity to them against the operation of laws. [para 54-
55] [284-G-H; 285-C]
Dasaratha Deb case (1952), the Committee of Privileges-
Parliament Secretariat Publication, July 1952, 45th Report of
the Committee of Privileges of the Rajya Sabha dated 30th D
November, 2000 - referred to.
2.6 In the instant matter~, the petitioners have not
made any inquiry against the members of the Legislative
Assembly or the Speaker or about their conduct and, E
therefore, the complaints made against the petitioners by
some of the members of the Legislative Assembly were
completely uncalled for, illegal and unconstitutional. By
carrying out investigation on a complaint received, the
petitioners merely performed their statutory duty and did r
not in any way affect the privileges which were being
enjoyed by the Assembly and its members. The action of
the petitioners did not interfere in the working of the
House and as such there are no grounds for issuing a
notice for the breach of Privilege of the Legislative G
Assembly. The Speaker has no jurisdiction to entertain
any such complaint, which is not even maintainable. [para
56, 60] [285-D-E; 286-E-F]
2.7 Also, in terms of the provisions of s. 11(2) of the
Lokayukt Act, any proceeding before the Lokayukt shall H
248 SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of ss. 193 and 228 IPC and as per s. 11 (3), the
Lokayukt is deemed to be a court within the meaning of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Further, the petitioners
have merely made inquiry within the scope of the
B provisions of the Act and have not done anything against
the Speaker personally. [para 61) [286-F-G]
2.8 This Court is of the view that the action being
investigated by the petitioners has nothing to do with the
proceedings of the House and as such the said action
C cannot constitute any breach of privilege of the House
or its members. [para 65) [287-G-H; 288-A]
2.9 It is made clear that privileges are available only
insofar as they are necessary in order that House may
D freely perform its functions. For the application of laws,
particularly, the provisions of the Lokayukt Act, and the
Prevention of Corruption Act, the jurisdiction of the
Lokayukt or the Madhya Pradesh Special Police
Establishment is for all public servants (except the
E Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh
Vidhan Sabha) and no privilege is available to the officials
and, in any case, they cannot claim any privilege more
than an ordinary citizen to whom the provisions of the
said Acts apply. Privileges do not extend to the activities
F undertaken outside the House on which the legislative
provisions would apply without any differentiation. The
impugned letters/notices are quashed. [para 66 and 69]
[288-A-D, G]
Case Law Reference:
G
[1955] 2 SCR 603 referred to para 27
[1963] 3 SCR 338 referred to para 28
[1989] 1 SCR 20 referred to para 29
H 2007 (1) SCR 317 referred to para 45
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 249
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
AIR 1955 154 referred to para 46 A
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
613 of 2007.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
B
K.K. Venugopal, Sushil Kr. Jain, Puneet Jain, Ashish
Kumar,Chhaya Kirti, Ankur Talwar, Amit Dayal, Pratibha Jain
for the Petitioners.
Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaja Shukla, Ankit Lal, C.D. Singh, C
Sunny Chowdhary for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. The present writ petition, under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the o
petitioners challenging the validity of certain letters issued by
Mr. Qazi Aqlimuddin - Secretary, Vidhan Sabha (Respondent
No.4 herein) on various dates against them with regard to a
case registered by the Special Police Establish.ment (SPE) of
the Lokayukt Organisation, against the officials of the Vidhan E
Sabha Secretariat as well as against the concerned officials
of the Capital Project Administration-the Contractor Company
alleging irregularity in the construction work carried out in the
premises of Vidhan Sabha.
2. It is relevant to mention that Petitioner No.1 herein was F
the Lokayukt of the State of Madhya Pradesh appointed under
·the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam
Uplokayukt Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Lokayukt
Act"). Petitioner No.2 was the Legal Advisor, a member of the
Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service on deputation with the G
· Lokayukt and Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 were the officers of Madhya
Pradesh Special Police Establishment.
/3. The petitioners herein claimed that the said letters
· viol~te their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A the Constitution of India and are contrary to Article 194(3) and
prayed for the issuance of a writ, order or direction(s) quashing
the said letters as well as the complaints filed by Respondent
Nos. 5, 6 (since expired), 7, 8 and 9 herein.
4. Brief facts
B
(a) An anonymous complaint was received on 21.06.2005
in the office of the Lokayukt stating that a road connecting the
Vidhan Sabha with Vallabh Bhawan, involving an expenditure
of about Rs. 2 crores, was being constructed without inviting
C tenders and complying with the prescribed procedure. It was
also averred in the said complaint that with a view to regularize
the above-said works, the officers misused their official position
and got the work sanctioned to the Capital Project
Administration in violation of the rules which amounts to serious
D financial irregularity and misuse of office. It was also mentioned
in the said complaint that in order to construct the said road,
one hundred trees had been cut down without getting the
permission from the concerned department. The said complaint
was registered as E.R. No.127 of2005. During the inquiry, the
E Deputy Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, vide
letter dated 18.08.2005 stated that the work had been allotted
to the lowest tenderer and the trees were cut only after obtaining
the requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation. In view
of the said reply, the matter was closed on 22.08.2005.
F (b) On 22.12.2006, again a complaint was filed by one Shri
P.N. Tiwari, supported with affidavit and various documents,
alleging the same irregularities in the said const. uction work
by the officers of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat in collusion with
the Capital Project Administration which got registered as E.R.
G No. 122 of 2006. A copy of the said complaint was sent to the
Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Government, Housing
and Environment Department for comments. In reply, the
Additional Secretary, M.P. Government, Housing and
Environment Department submitted the comments along with
H certain documents stating that the Building Controller Division
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 251
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
working under the Capital Project Administration was A
transferred to the administrative control of the Vidhan Sabha
Secretariat vide Order dated 17.07.2000 and consequently the
Secretariat Vidhan Sabha was solely responsible for the
construction and maintenance work within the Vidhan Sabha
premises. B
(c) On 26.06.2007, a request was made to the Principal
Secretary, Housing and Environment Department to submit all
the relevant records, tender documents, note sheets,
administrative, technical and budgetary sanctions by C
10.10.2007. By letter dated 17.07.2007, the Under Secretary
of the said Department informed that since the admi;iistrative
sanctions were issued by the Secretariat Vidhan Sabha, the
materials were not available with them. In view of the said reply,
the Lokayukt-(Petitioner No.1 herein) sent letters dated
31.07.2007 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Housing and D
Environment Department, Administrator, Capital Project
Administration and the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha
Secretariat to appear before him along with all the relevant
records on 10.08.2007. On 10.08.2007, the Principal
Secretary, Housing and Environment appeared before the E
Lokayukt and informed that since the Controller Buildings of
Capital Project Administration was working under the
administrative control of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat since
2000, all sanctions/approvals and records relating to
construction and maintenance work were available in the Vidhan F
Sabha Secretariat. In view of the above reply, the Lokayukt
summoned the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan
Sabha, Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 respectively on
24.08.2007 to give evidence and produce all records/note-
sheets of administrative and technical sanctions and budgetary G
and tender approvals relating to construction works carried out
in MLA Rest House and Vidhan Sabha Premises in the year
2005-2006.
(d) The Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, Respondent No. 10 H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 3 S.C.R.
A herein, in his deposition dated 24.08.2007, admitted giving of
administrative approval to the estimated cost which was
available with the office of the Lokayukta and stated that the
relevant note-sheet was in the possession of the Hon'ble
Speaker, therefore, he prayed for time to produce the same
B by 07.09.2007.
(e) Vide letter dated 07.09.2007, Respondent No.10.
conveyed his inability to produce the same. After receiving
information from the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department,
C Capital Project, Controller Buildings, Vidhan Sabha, Capital
Project Administration and Chief Engineer, Public Works
Department vide letters dated 11.09.2007, 13.09.2007 and
18.09.2007 respectively, the Legal Advisor -Petitioner No. 2
herein - a member of the M.P. Higher Judicial Service
thoroughly examined the same and found that it is a fit case to
D be sent to the SPE for taking action in accordance with law.
Petitioner No.1 was in agreement with the said opinion.
Thereafter, Crime Case No. 33/07 was registered against the
Secretary, Vidhan Sabha (Respondent No.10 herein), Shri A.P.
Singh, Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, the then Administrator,
E Superintendent Engineer, Capital Project Administration and
Contractors on 06.10.2007.
(f) After registration of the case, Petitioner No.1 received
the impugned letters dated 15.10.2007 and 18.10.2007
F alleging breach of privilege under Procedures and Conduct of
Business Rules 164 of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha
against him and the officers of the Special Police
Establishment. In response to the aforesaid letters, by letter
dated 23.10.2007, the Secretary, Lokayukt explained the
G factual position of Petitioner No.1 herein stating that no case
of breach of privilege was made out and also pointed out that
neither any complaint had been received against the Hon'ble
Speaker nor any inquiry was conducted by the Lokayukt
Organization against him nor his name was found in the FIR.
H (g) On 26.10.2007, the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha -
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 253
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Respondent No.4 sent six letters stating that the reply dated A
23.10.2007 is not acceptable and that individual replies should
be sent by each of the petitioners.
(h) Being aggrieved by the initiation of action by the
Hon'ble Speaker for breach of privilege, the petitioners have 8
preferred this writ petition.
5. Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for
the writ petitioners, Mr. Mishra Saurabh, learned counsel for the
State-Respondent No. 1 and Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel
for the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha-Respondent No.4. C
Contentions:
6. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners raised the following contentions:-
D
(i) Whether the Legislative Assembly or its Members enjoy
any privilege in respect of an inquiry or an investigation into a
criminal offence punishable under any law for the time being in
force, even when inquiry or investigation was initiated in
performance of duty enjoined by law enacted by the very E
Legislative Assembly of which the breach of privilege is
alleged?
(ii) Whether officials of the Legislative Assembly also enjoy
the same privileges which are available to Assembly and its
F
Members?
(iii) Whether seeking mere information or calling the
officials of Vidhan Sabha Secretariat for providing information
during inquiry or investigation amounts to breach of privilege?
G
(iv) In view of the letter dated 23.08.2007, sent by the
Principal Secretary to Respondent Nos. 10 and 11, i.e.,
Secretary and Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha respectively
directing them to appear before the Lokayukt (as per the order
of the Speaker), whether Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 can have H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 3 S.C.R.
A any grievance that information was sought from them without
sanction and knowledge of the Speaker?
7. On behalf of the respondents, particularly, Respondent
No.4-Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, Mr. C.D. Singh, at the foremost
B submitted that the present petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court is not
maintainable as no fundamental right of the petitioners, as
envisaged in Part Ill of the Constitution, has been violated by
any of the actions of Respondent No. 4. It is their stand that
every action pertaining to the Assembly and its administration
C is within the domain and jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Speaker.
The matter of privilege is governed under the rules as contained
in Chapter XXI of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha. Hence, it is
stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed both on
D the ground of maintainability as well as on merits.
8. Before considering rival contentions and the legal
position, it is useful to recapitulate the factual details and
relevant statutory provisions which are as under:-
E
The legislature of the Central Province and Berar enacted
the Central Provinces and Berar Special Police Establishment
Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SPE Act'). Under the
said Act, a Special Police Force was constituted which has
F power to investigate the offences notified by the State
Government under Section 3 of the said Act, which reads as
under:-
"3. Offences to be investigated by Special Police
Establishment:- The State Government may, by
G notifications, specify the offences or classes of offences
which are to be investigated by (Madhya Pradesh) Special
Police Establishment."
9. On 16.09.1981, Legislative Assembly of the State of
H Madhya Pradesh enacted the Lokayukt Act with the following
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 255
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
objective as has been stated in the preamble of the said Act:- A
'.'An Act to make provision for the appointment and
functions of certain authorities for the enquiry into the
allegation against "Public Servants" and for matters
connected there with."
B
Section 2(a) of the Lokayukt Act defines "officer" in the
following manner:-
"officer" means a person appointed to a public service or
post in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya c
Pradesh."
Section 2(b) defines "allegation" as f.ollows:-
"allegation" in relation to a public servant means any
affirmation that such public servant, D
(i) has abused his position as such to obtain any gain or
favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue
harm to any person;
(ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such E
public servant by improper or corrupt motives;
(iii) is guilty of corruption; or
(iv) is in possession of pecuniary resources or property F
disproportionate to his known sources of income and such
pecuniary resources or property is held by the public
servant personally or by any member of his family or by
some other person on his behalf.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-clause "family" G
means husband, wife, sons and unmarried daughters living
jointly with him;"
The phrase "Public Servant" has been defined under Section
2(g) of the Lokayukt Act in the following terms: H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S C.R.
A "Public Servant" means a person falling under any of the
following categories, namely:-
(i) Minister;
(ii) a person having the rank of a Minister but shall not
B include Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Madhya
Pradesh Vidhan Sabha;
(iii) an officer referred to in clause (a);
(iv) an officer of an Apex Society or Central Society within
c the meaning of Clause (t-1) read with Clauses (a-1), (c-1)
and {z) of Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 (No. 17 of 1961 ).
(v) Any person holding any office in, or any employee of -
D
(i) a Government Company within the meaning of
Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956; or
(ii) a Corporation or Local Authority established by
State Government under a Central or State
E enactment.
(vi) (a) Up-Kulpati, Adhyacharya and Kul Sachiva of the
Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya constituted under
Section 3 of the Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Act,
F 1956 (No. 19 of 1956);
(b) Kulpati and Registrar of the Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi
Vishwavidyalaya constituted under Section 3 of the
Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 (No.
12 of 1963);
G
Kulpati Rector and Registrar of the Vishwavidyalay
constituted under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh
Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 22 of 1973)."
H 10. Thus, all persons, except those specifically excluded
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 257
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
under the said definition, come within the domain of the A
Lokayukt Act and the Lokayukt can, therefore, entertain
complaints and take actions in accordance with the said
provisions. Section 7 of the said Act thereafter defines the role
of the Lokayukt and the Up-Lokayukt in the following terms:-
B
"7. Matters which may be enquired into by Lokayukt
or Up-Lokayukt:-
Subject to the provision of this Act, on receiving complaint
or other information:-
c
(i) the Lokayukt may proceed to enquire into an allegation
made against a public servant in relation to whom the
Chief Minister is the competent authority.
(ii) the Up-Lokayukt may proceed to enquire into an D
allegation made against any public servant other than
referred to in clause (i)
Provided that the Lokayukt may enquire into an allegation
made against any public servant referred to in clause (ii). E
Explanation:- For the purpose of this Section, the
expression "may proceed to enquire", and "may enquire",
include investigation by Police agency put at the disposal
. of Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt in pursuance of sub-Section F
(3) of Section 13.
11. On 14.09.2000, the State Government issued a
notification in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the SPE
Act by which the Special Police Establishment was empowered G
to investigate offences with regard to the following offences:-
(a) Offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (No. 49 of 1988);
H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A (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
servants or employees of a local authority or a statutory
corporation, when such offences adversely affect the
B interests of the State Government or the local authority or
the statutory corporation, as the case may be;
(c) Conspiracies in respect of offences mentioned in item
(a) and (b) above; and
c
(d) Conspiracies in respect of offences mentioned in item
(a) and (b) shall be charged with simultaneously in one trial
under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(No. 2 of 1974).
D
12. As per the provision of Section 4 of the SPE Act, the
superintendence of investigation by the M.P. Special Police
Establishment was vested in the Lokayukt appointed under the
Lokayukt Act.
E 13. On 22.12.2006, a complaint was received from one
Shri P.N. Tiwari supported by affidavit and various documents
making allegations that works had been carried out in the new
Assembly building by the Capital Project Administration in
gross violation of the rules, without making budgetary provisions
F and committing financial irregularities. The said complaint was
registered as E.R. 122 of 2006. In the said complaint, it was
mentioned that:
(a) An order had been issued to the Administrator, Capital
G Project Administration by Shri A.P. Singh, Deputy Secretary,
Vidhan Sabha giving administrative approval for the estimate
of the cost of construction against rules and without making
budgetary provision vide order dated 19.10.2005 in respect of
H
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 259
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
the following works: A
S.No. Name of works Amount in
lakhs
(i) Construction of 30 rooms in MLA Rest Rs. 5.51
House Block-2 B
(ii) Construction of toilets in Block 1-3 of Rs. 25.48
MLA Rest House
(iii) Construction of shops in MLA Rest Rs. 5.98
House premises
(iv) Up-gradation/construction of road from c
Mazar to Gate No. 5 of Vidhan Sabha
(Old Jail)
(a) Construction of road from Mazar to Rs. 22.52
Rotary
(b) Construction of road from Rotary to Rs. 13.23 D
Jail Road
(v) Construction of lounge for the Speaker Rs. 6.80
and Officers in Vidhan Sabha Hall
(vi) Construction of new reception zone Rs. 54.00 E
(including parking/road) for Vidhan
Sabha
(vii) Upgradation work of campus lights and Rs. 26.60
electric work in MLA Rest House .
premises F
(viii) Construction of road from Vidhan Sabha
to Secretariat (including development of
helipad and connected area) and
proposed upgradation and development
work of M.P. Pool/spraypond: G
(a) Construction of new road from the Vlf Rs. 10.85
entrance upto the proposed new gate
(b) Construction of road from present Rs. 21.56
Char Diwari to Rotary .
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A (c) Construction of road from Rotary to Rs. 12.00
Secretariat
Total sanctioned amount Rs. 204.53
(b) the officers had abused their powers by getting the
works carried out without making budgetary provisions and
B without getting approval from the Finance Department in
respect of the works specified at item numbers (iv), (vi), (vii)
and (viii) above.
(c) Following financial irregularities were also pointed out:
c (i) Though administrative approval was accorded by
Shri A.P. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha
on 19.10.2005, works had already been executed
and inaugurated in the presence of the then Chief
Minister, Shri Babula! Gaur and the Speaker,
D Vidhan Sabha and other Ministers on 03.08.2005.
The proper procedure is to first invite tenders and
it is only after the acceptance of the suitable tenders
that work orders are to be issued.
E (ii) Budgetary head of the Vidhan Sabha is 1555. This
head is meant for maintenance and not for new
construction, but the administrative approval dated
19.10.2005 was accorded by Shri A.P. Singh,
Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha in respect of new
F works of total value of Rs. 160. 76 lakh.
(iii) Works of the value of Rs. 160. 76 lakh were carried
out without any budgetary provision and also without
the approval of the Finance Department.
Furthermore, a proposal had been sent by the
G Capital Project Administration for sanction of
budget but the same was not approved by the
Finance Department. Even then the works were got
executed.
H (iv) As per the approval dated 19.10.2005, expenditure
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 261
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
was to be incurred from the main budgetary head A
2217 which is the head of Urban Development.
From that head, construction activities in the Vidhan
Sabha premises could not be carried out.
(v) The Controller Buildings, Capital Project (Vidhan
B
Sabha) executed the .works in collusion with the
other officers and in violation of the rules. It was
stated that the officials had abused their powers to
regularize their irregular activities. The works had
been undertaken forthe personal benefit of some
officers and payments were made in violation of the C
rules.
14. By letter dated 04.01.2007, a copy of the complaint
was sent to the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh
Government, Housing and Environment Department calling D
factual comments along with the relevant documents. The
comments were submitted by the Additional Secretary, M.P.
Government, Housing and Environment Department vide letter
dated 15.05.2007. The comments, inter alia, stated that the
Building Controller Division functioning under the Capital Project E
Administration was transferred to the administrative control of
the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat vide order dated 17.07.2000,
consequently, Secretariat Vidhan Sabha is solely responsible
for the construction and maintenance works within the Vidhan
Sabha p'remises. On examination of the comments received F
along with the supporting documents, following discrepancies
were revealed:
(a) Whereas the comments stated that budget
provision had been made. for an amount of
Rs.204.53 lakh for the purpose of special repairs G
and maintenance of old and new Vidhan Sabha and
MLA Rest House under Demand No. 21, main head
2217, sub main head 01, minor head 001,
development head 1555 (3207), no amounts were
specified under those heads, sub heads and minor H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A heads which were related to new construction
works;
(b) Whereas the comments stated that work had been
executed through tenders, but tender documents
had not been annexed.
B
(c) Whereas the comments stated that approval in
respect of nine works had been accorded by the
Secretariat, Vidhan Sabha on the request of the
Controller Buildings on 21.03.2005, however, it is
c not clear from the letter dated 21.03.2005 that
administrative approval had been accorded; and
(d) Whereas the comments stated that amended
sanction was granted vide order dated 19.10.2005,
D while the letter dated 19.10.2005 does not indicate
that it was an amended administrative sanction.
15. In view of the above preliminary observations, as noted
above, a request was made to the Principal Secretary, Housing
and Environment Department to submit all relevant records,
E tender documents, note-sheets, administrative, technical and
budgetary sanctions by 10.07.2007. It was again informed by
the Under Secretary, Housing and Environment Department,
vide letter dated 17.07.2007 that since the administrative
sanctions were issued by the Secretariat Vidhan Sabha, the
F note-sheets/records relating to such sanctions were not
available with the Housing and Environment Department.
16. In view of the reply submitted by the Under Secretary,
Housing and Environment Department, the Petitioner sent a
G letter dated 31.07.2007 addressed to the Principal Secretary,
Housing and Environment Department, Administrator, Capital
Project Administration and the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan
Sabha Secretariat to appear before the Lokayukt along with
all relevant information/records on 10.08.2007.
H
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 263
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
17. On the date fixed for appearance, i.e., 10.08.2007, the A
Principal Secretary, Housing arid Environment appeared before
the Lokayukt. He informed that since the Controller Buildings
of Capital Project Administration was working under the
administrative control of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat since
the year2000, all sanctions/approvals and records regarding B
construction and maintenance works carried out in MLA Rest
House and Vidhan Sabha premises were available in the
Vidhan Sabha Secretariat. On receiving such information, the
Principal Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, informed that
the records relating to construction works were not with him and C
that such type of work was looked after by the Secretary and
the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha. In this situation, Secretary
and Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Secretariat and Controller
Buildings, Vidhan Sabha, Capital Project Administration were
summoned to give evidence and produce all records/note-
sheets of administrative and technical sanctions and budgetary D
and tender approvals relating to construction works carried out
in MLA Rest House and Vidhan Sabha premises in the year
2005-06 on 24.08.2007. Summons were issued as per the
provisions of Section 11 (1) of the Lokayukt Act, read with
Sections 61 and 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. E
Summons were received by the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan
Sabha, Shri G.K. Rajpal and the Controller Buildings, Shri
Devendra Tiwari. Process Server of the Lokayukt Organisation
· tried to serve summons on Shri lsrani in his office. Process
Server contacted Shri Harish Kumar Shrivas, P.A. to Shri lsrani. F
The P.A. took the summons to Shri lsrani. After coming back,
he asked the Process Server to wait tiil 4.00 p.m. Later, the
P.A. told the Process Server to take permission of the Hon'ble
Speaker to effect service of the summons on the Secretary. As
such, summons could not be served on Shri lsrani. G
18. Thereafter, D.O. letter dated 14.08.2007 was received
from the Principal Secretary, Vidhan Sabha stating that as per
the direction of the Hon'ble Speaker, he was informing the
Lokayukt Organization that:
H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 3 S.C.R.
A (a) The Vidhan Sabha Secretariat was not aware as
to the complaint which was being inquired into;
(b) All proceedings relating to invitation of tenders,
technical sanction, work orders and payment etc.
were conducted through the Controller Buildings,
B Capital Project Administration and, therefore, all the
records relating to these works should be available
with them;
(c) If, a copy of the complaint, which is being inquired
c into, is made available to the Vidhan Sabha
Secretariat, it would be possible to make the
position more clear. That was the reason why the
Speaker had not granted permission to the Deputy
Secretary to appear in the Office of the Lokayukt;
D and
(d) Under the provisions of Section 2(g)(ii) of the
Lokayukt Act, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker
and the Leader of Opposition are exempted from
the jurisdiction of the Lokayukt.
E
19. Shri lsrani appeared before the Lokayukt on
24.08.2007 when his deposition was recorded. In his
deposition, he stated that the administrative approval to the
estimated cost dated 19.10.2005 was given, which was
F available with the office of the Lokayukt. He further stated that
note-sheet relating to administrative approval had been
prepared which was in possession of the Speaker. Accordingly,
he was required to produce the same by 07.09.2007.
20. Information was called for from the Chief Engineer,
G Public Works Department, Capital Project Administration,
Controller Buildings, Vidhan Sabha, Capital Project
Administration and Chief Engineer, Public Works Department.
The same was received vide letters dated 11.09.2007,
13.09.2007 and 18.09.2007 respectively.
H
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 265
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.] _
21. Scrutiny note was prepared by the Legal Advisor, Mrs. A
Vibhawari Joshi, a member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher
Judicial Service, on deputation to the Lokayukt Organization,
with the assistance of the Technical Cell, with the approval of
the Lokayukt. After examination of the information and records
received from the various authorities concerned, she prima B
facie found established that:
(a) contracts in respect of construction of roads and
reception plaza and renovation of toilets were awarded at rates
higher than the prevailing rates;
c
(b) works were got executed even when there were no
budgetary provisions. Demand for budget was made from the
Finance Department but the same had not been accepted;
(c) new construction works of the value of Rs. 173.54 lakh D
were got executed from the maintenance head, which was not
permissible, since the maintenance head i~ meant for
maintenance works and not for new works;
(d) for new construction works of the value of Rs.173.54
lakh, administrative approval and technical sanction had been E
accorded by the authorities, who were not competent to do so;
(e) works of Rs.205.61 lakh were got executed without
obtaining administrative approval and technical sanction;
F
(f) records show that measurements of WBM work were
recorded after the Bitumen work (tarring) had been completed.
Proper procedure is that first the measurements of WBM work
are recorded, thereafter Bitumen work is executed and it is only
thereafter measurements of Bitumen work are recorded.
Discrepancies in the recording of measurements create doubt; G
(g) Rules provide that in the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT),
schedule of quantities is annexed so that the tenderers may
make proper assessment while quoting rates, but in the present
case, in the NIT for roads in Schedule-I, quantities were not H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A specified. So, it was difficult for the tenderers to make proper
assessment while quoting rates. This throws doubt on the
legitimacy of the process.
(h) (i) Road was to be constructed within the diameter of
300 meters. For this small area, work was split up
B
into five portions and four contractors were
engaged. Rules provide that for one road, there
should be one estimate, one technical sanction and
one NIT. In the present case, five estimates were
prepared, five technical sanctions were granted, five
c tenders were invited and four contractors were
engaged. This throws doubt on the legitimacy of the
process;
(ii) There are three processes involved in the
D construction of roads, i.e., WBM, Bitumen and
thermoplastic. As per the rules and practice, for all
the three processes, there should be one tender,
but in the present case, the work was split up into
three portions inasmuch work of WBM was given
E to two contractors, work of Bitumen to one other
and work of thermoplastic to still another;
(iii) Cement concrete road was constructed for a
small part of the same road. For this small part of
the road another separate NIT was invited and work
F
was awarded to a separate contractor, i.e., the fifth
contractor;
(i) The Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of Vidhan
Sabha Secretariat and Administrator, Superintending Engineer
G and Controller Buildings of Capital Project Administration in
collusion with the contractors, in order to give undue benefits
to them by abusing their official position caused loss of
Rs.12,62,016/- to Rs.20, 71,978/- to the Government.
c.!:-1 In view of the above, the Legal Advisor (Petit:oner No.2 herein)
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 267
. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
recorded her opinion that it is a fit case to be sent to the SPE A
for taking action in accordance with law. The Lokayukt
Petitioner No. 1 agreed with the note of the Legal Advisor and
observed that it is a fit case to be dealt with further by the SPE.
The case was accordingly sent to the SPE.
22. The SPE, thereafter, registered Crime Case No. 33/ B
07 on 06.10.2007 against Shri Bhagwan Dev lsrani, Secretary
Vidhan Sabha, Shri A.P. Singh, Deputy Secretary Vidhan
Sabha, the then Administrator, Superintending Engineer,
Capital Project Administration and Contractors. Soon after the
registration of the criminal case, the petitioners received the C
impugned notices dated 15.10.2007 wherein allegations of
breach of privilege were made against the petitioners. The
petitioners understood that the said letters had been issued on
the basis of some complaints by the Members of Legislative
Assembly. The petitioners received further notices for breach D
of privilege on the basis of the complaint made by Shri Gajraj
Singh, MLA.
23. In response to the aforesaid letters, the Secretary of
the Lokayukt Organization, on the direction of the Petitioner No. E
1 sent a letter dated 23.10.2007, to Respondent No. 4-Shri Qazi
Aqlimuddin, Secretary, Vidhan Sabha giving in details about
the constitutional, legal and factual position stating that no case
of privilege was made out. It was also pointed out that neither
any complaint had been received against the Speaker,
F
Respondent No. 1 nor any inquiry was conducted by the
Lokayukt Organization against him nor was he named in the
FIR.
24. Respondent No. 4, i.e., Secretary, Vidhan Sabha,
thereafter sent six letters dated 26.10.2007 to the petitioners. G
By the said letters, the petitioners were informed that the reply
dated 23.10.2007 had not been accepted and it was directed
that individual replies should be sent by each of the petitioners.
Being aggrieved by the initiation of action by the Speaker for
breach of privilege against the petitioners, as noted above, the H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A petitioners herein filed the present writ petition.
Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution:
25. Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for
B Respondent No.4, by drawing our attention to the relief prayed
for and of the fact that quashing relates to letters on various
dates wherein after pointing out the notice of breach of privilege
received from the members of Madhya Pradesh Assembly
sought comments/opinion within seven days for consideration
C of the Hon'ble Speaker, submitted that the proper course would
be to submit their response and writ petition under Article 32
of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
26. Mr. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners submitted that as the impugned proceedings which
0
are mere letters calling for response as they relate to breach
of privilege, amount to violation of rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution, hence, the present writ petition is maintainable.
In support of his claim, he referred to various decisions of this
Court.
E
27. There is no dispute that all the impugned proceedings
or notices/letters/complaints made by various members of the
Madhya Pradesh Assembly claimed that the writ petitioners
violated the privilege of the House. Ultimately, if their replies
F are not acceptable, the petitioners have no other remedy except
to face the consequence, namely, action under Madhya
Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Procedure and Conduct of Business
Rules, 1964. If any decision is taken by the House, the
petitioners may not be in a position to challenge the same
G effectively before the court of law. In The Bengal Immunity
Company Limited vs. The State of Bihar and Others, [1955)
2 SCR 603, seven Hon'ble Judges of this Court accepted
similar writ petition. The said case arose against the judgment
of the High Court of Patna dated 04.12.1952 whereby it
H dismissed the application made by the api->ellant-Company
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 269
) STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate A
writ or order quashing the proceedings issued by the opposite
parties for the purpose of levying and realising a tax which is
not lawfully leviable on the petitioners and for other ancillary
reliefs. As in the case on hand, it has been argued before the
seven-Judge Bench that the application was premature, for B
there has, so far, been no investigation or finding on facts and
no assessment under Section 13 of the Act. Rejecting the said
contention, this Court held thus:
" .... In the first place, it ignores the plain fact that this notiee, C
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
the Act is void under article 265 read with article 286
constitute, in presenti, an encroachment on and an D
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 E
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 wnich prima facie compels obedience as
a matter of prudence and precaution. It is, therefore, not F
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 G
he may or may not do.
Another plea advanced by the respondent State is
that the appellant cqmpany is not entitled to take
proceedings praying for the issue of_ prerogative writs
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A under article 226 as it has adequate alternative remedy
under the impugned Act by way of appeal or revision. The
answer to this plea is short and simple. The remedy under
the Act cannot be said to be adequate and is, indeed,
nugatory or useless if the Act which provides for such
B remedy is itself ultra vires and void and the principle relied
upon can, therefore, have no application where a party
comes to Court with an allegation that his right has been
or is being threatened to be infringed by a law which is
ultra vires the powers of the legislature which enacted it
c and as such void and prays for appropriate relief under
article 226. As said by this Court in Himmatlal Harilal
Mehta vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) this plea
of the State stands negatived by the decision of this Court
in The State of Bombay vs. The United Motors (India) Ltd.
(supra). We are, therefore, of the opinion, for reasons
D
stated above, that the High Court was not right in holding
that the petition under article 226 was misconceived or
was not maintainable. It will, therefore, have to be
examined and decided on merits ........ "
E 28. In East India Commercial Co., Ltd., Calcutta and
Another vs. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta, [1963] 3 SCR
338, which is a three-Judge Bench decision, this Court
negatived similar objection as pointed out in our case bfthe
State. In that case, the appellants-East India Commercial Co.
F Ltd., Calcutta had brought into India from U.S.A. a large quantity
of electrical instruments under a licence. The respondent,
Collector of Customs, Calcutta, started proceedings for
confiscation of these goods under Section 167(8) of the Sea
Customs Act, 1878. The appellants mainly contended that the
G proceedings are entirely without jurisdiction as the Collector
can confiscate only when there is an import in contravention of
an order prohibiting or restricting it and in that case the Collector
was proceeding to confiscate on the ground that a condition
of the licence under which the goods had been imported had
H been disobeyed. The appellants, therefore, prayed for a writ of
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 271
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
prohibition directing the Collector to stop the proceedings. The A
objection of the other side was that the appellant had
approached the High Court at the notice stage and the same
cannot be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Rejecting the said contention, this Court held:
B
" ..... 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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
prohibited from proceeding with the same. We, therefore,
reject this preliminary contention."
29. In Kiran Bedi & Ors. vs. Committee of Inquiry & Anr.
j1989J 1 SCR 20, which is also a three Judge Bench decision.
H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A the following conclusion in the penultimate paragraph is relevant:
"47 As regards points (v), (vi) and (vii) suffice it to point
out that the petitioners have apart from filing special leave
petitions also filed writ petitions challenging the very same
orders and since we have held that the action of the
B
Committee in holding that the petitioners were not covered
by Section 88 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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F 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."
G It is clear from the above decisions that if it is established that
the proposed actions are not permissible involving infringement
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, this Court is well within
its power to pass appropriate order in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution. Further, if the
H
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 273
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.)
petitioners are compelled to face the privilege proceedings A
before the Vidhan Sabha, it would cause prejudice to them.
Further, if the petitioners are compelled to face the privilege
motion in spite of the fact that no proceeding was initiated
against Hon'ble Speaker or Members of the House but only
relating to the officers in respect of contractual matters, if urgent B
intervention is not sought for by exercising extraordinary
jurisdiction, undoubtedly, it would cause prejudice to the
petitioners.
30. Accordingly, we reject the preliminary objection raised C
by the counsel for Respondent No.4 and hold that writ petition
under Article 32 is maintainable.
31. With the above factual background and the relevant
statutory provisions, let us examine the rival submissions.
D
32. Now, we will consider the contentions raised by Mr.
Venugopal. As mentioned earlier, Petitioner No. 1 is the
Lokayukt appointed und.er the provisions of the Lokayukta Act
exercising powers and functions as provided under the Act. In
the course of the performance of the said functions, the
E
Lokayukt Organization received a complaint regarding certain
irregularities in the award of contracts. Petitioner Nos. 1 and
2, therefore, conducted preliminary inquiry in the matter and on
finding that a prima facie 'case under the Prevention of
Corruption Act was made out, the matter was referred to the
F
SPE established under the provisions of the M.P. Special
Police Establishment Act, 1947 to be dealt with further, and
thereafter, a case was registered by the said Establishment
under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
33. Article 194(3) of the Constitution provides for privileges G
of the Legislative Assembly and its members which reads as
under:
"194. Powers, privileges, etc, of the House of
Legislatures and of the members and committees
H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 3 S.C.R.
A thereof
(1) ***
(2) ***
8 (3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities
of a House of the Legislature of a State, and of the
members and the committees of a House of such
Legislature, shall be such as may from time to time be
defined by the Legislature by law, and, until so defined,
c shall be those of that House and of its members and
committees immediately before the coming into force of
Section 26 of the r.cnstitution forty fourth Amendment Act,
1978."
34. Article 194 is similar to Article 105 of the Constitution,
D which provides for the privileges of Parliament and its
Members. The said Articles provide that the privileges enjoyed
by the legislature shall be such as may from time to time be
defined by the legislature by law. It is relevant to mention that
any law made by the Parliament or the legislature is subject to
E the discipline contained in Part Ill of the Constitution. The
privileges have not been defined but the above Article provides
that until the same are so defined (i.e. by the legislature by law),
they shall be those which the House or its members and
committees enjoyed immediately before the coming into force
F of Section 26 of the Constitution Forty-fourth Amendment Act,
1978.
35. As per Chapter XI of the 'Practice and Procedure of
Parliament' (Fifth edition), by M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher in
G interpreting parliamentary privileges at Page 211 observed:
"... regard must be had to the general principle that the
privileges of Parliament are granted to members in order
that they may be able to perform their duties in Parliament
without let or hindrance. They apply to individual members
H
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. . 275
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
only insofar as they are necessary in order that the House A
may freely perform its functions. They do not discharge the
member from the obligations to society 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 8
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.
The fundamental principle is that all citizens, including
members of Parliament, have to be treat~d equally in the C
eye of the law. Unless so specified in the Constitution or
in any law, a member of Parliament cannot claim any
privileges higher than those enjoyed by any ordinary citizen
in the malter of the application of law."
D
36. It is clear that in the matter of the application of laws,
particularly, the provisions of the LokayuktAct and :the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, insofar as the jurisdiction
of the Lokayukt or the Madhya Pradesh Special Establishment
is concerned, all public servants except the Speaker and the E
Deputy Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha for the
purposes of the Lokayukt Act fall in. the same category and
cannot claim any privilege more than an ordinary citizen to
whom the provisions of the said Acts apply. In other words, the
privileges are available only insofar as they are necessary in
F
order that the House may freely perform its functions but do not
extend to the activities undertaken outside the House on which
the legislative provisions would apply without any
differentiations. In view of the above, we reject the contra
argument made by Mr. C.D. Singh.
G
37. As rightly submitted by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, in India,
there is rule of law and not of men and, thus, there is primacy
of the laws enacted by the legislature which do not discriminate
between persons to whom such laws would apply. The laws
would apply to all such persons unless the law itself makes an H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 3 S.C.R
A exception on a valid classification. No individual can claim
privilege against the application of laws and for liabilities
fastened on commission of a prohibited Act.
38. In respect of the scope of the privileges enjoyed by the
Members, the then Speaker Mavalankar, while addressing the
8 conference of the Presiding Officers at Rajkot, on 03.01.1955,
observed:
"The simply reply to this is that those privileges which are
extended by the Constitution to the legislature, its
C members, etc. are equated with the privileges of the House
of Commons in England. It has to be noted here that the
House of Commons does not allow the creation of any
privileges; and only such privileges are recognized as have
existed by long time custom."
D
39. The scope of the privileges enjoyed depends upon the
need for privileges, i.e., why they have been provided for. The
basic premise for the privileges enjoyed by the members is to
allow them to perform their functions as members and no
hindrance is caused to the functioning of the House. Committee
E of Privileges of the Tenth Lok Sabha, noted the main arguments
that have been advanced in favour of codification, some of
which are as follows:
"(i) Parliamentary privileges are intended to be enjoyed on
F behalf of the people, in their interests and not against the
people opposed to their interests;
*** *** ***
(iii) the concept of privileges for any class of people is
G anarchronistic in a democratic society and, therefore, if
any, these privileges should be the barest minimum - only
those necessary for functional purposes - and invariably
defined in clear and precise terms;
H
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 277
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SA.THASIVAM, CJI.]
(iv) sovereignty of Parliament has increasingly become a A
myth and a fallacy for, sovereignty, if any, vests only in the
people of India who exercise it at the time of general
elections to the Lok Sabha and to the State Assemblies;
(v) in a system wedded to freedom and democracy - rule B
of law, rights of the individual, independent judiciary and
·constitutional government - it is only fair that the
fundamental rights of the citizens enshrined in the
Constitution should have primacy over any privileges or
special rights of any class of people, including the elected C
legislators, and that all such claims should be subject to
judicial scrutiny, for situations may arise where the rights
of the people may have to be protected even against the
Parliament or against captive or capricious parliamentary
majorities of the moment;
D
(vi) the Constitution specifically envisaged privileges of the
Houses of parliament and State Legislatures and their
members and committees being defined by law by the
respective legislatures and as such the Constitution-
makers definitely intended these privileges being subject E
to the fundamental rights, provisions of the Constitution
and the jurisdiction of the courts;
*** *** ***
(viii) in any case, there is no question of any fresh privileges F
being added inasmuch as (a) under the Constitution, even
at present, parliamentary privileges in India continue in ·
actual practice to be governed by the precedents of the .
House of Commons as they existed on the day our
Constitution came into force; and (b) in the House of G
.Commons itself, creation of new privileges is not allowed."
40. The Committee also noted the main arguments
against codification. Argument no. (vii) is as under:
H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A "(vii) The basic law that all citizens should be treated
equally before the law holds good in the case of members
of Parliament as well. They have the same rights and
liberties as ordinary citizens except when they perform
their duties in the Parliament. The privileges, therefore, do
B not, in any way, exempt members from their normal
obligation to society which apply to them as much and,
perhaps, more closely in that as they apply to others."
41. It is clear that the basic concept is that the privileges
C are those rights without which the House cannot perform its
legislative functions. They do not exempt the Members from
their obligations under any statute which continue to apply to
them like any other law applicable to ordinary citizens. Thus,
enquiry or investigation into an allegation of corruption against
some officers of the Legislative Assembly cannot be said to
D interfere with the legislative functions of the Assembly. No one
enjoys any privilege against criminal prosecution.
42. According to Erskine May, the privilege of freedom from
arrest has never been allowed to interfere with the
E administration of criminal justice or emergency legislation.
Thus, in any case, there cannot be any privilege against conduct
of investigation for a criminal offence. There is a provision that
in case a member is arrested or detained, the House ought to
be informed about the same.
F 43. With regard to "Statutory detention", it has been stated,
thus:
"The detention of a member under Regulation 188 of the
Defence (General), Regulation 1939, made under the
G Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts 1939 and 1940, led
to the committee of privileges being directed to consider
whether such detention constituted a breach of Privilege
of the House; the committee reported that there was no
breach of privilege involved. In the case of a member
H deported from Northern Rhodesia for non-compliance with
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 279
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
an order declaring him to be prohibited immigrant, the A
speaker held that there was no prima-facie case of
breach of privilege.
The detention of members in Ireland in 1918 and 1922
under the Defence of the Realm Regulations and the Civil
8
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."
44. The committee for Privileges of Jhe Lords has C
considered the effect of the powers of detention under the
Mental Health Act, 1983 on the privileges of freedom from arrest
referred to in Standing Order No. 79 that 'no Lord of .Parliament
is to be imprisoned or restrained without sentence or order of
the House unless upon a criminal charge or refusing to give D
security for the peace'. The Committee accepted the advice of
Lord Diplock ;md other Law Lords that the provisions of the
statute would prevail against any existing privilege of
Parliament or of peerage.
E
45. In Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and
Others, (2007) 3 SCC 184, this Court observed:
"71. In U.P. Assembly case (Special Reference No. 1 of
1964), while dealing with questions relating to powers,
privileges and immunities of the State Legislatures, it was F
observed as under:
"70 .... Parliamentary privilege, according to May,
is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each
House collectively as a constituent part of the High G
Court of Parliament, and by Members of each
House individually, without which they could not
discharge their functions, and which exceed those
possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus,
privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 3 S.C.R.
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
8
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
c '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
D authority and dignity (May's Parliamentary Practice, pp. 42-
43)."
The privilege of freedom from arrest has never been
allowed to interfere with the administration of criminal
justice or emergency legislation.
E
87. In U.P. Assembly case (Special Reference No. 1 of
1964) it was settled by this Court that a broad claim that
all the powers enjoyed by the House of Commons at the
commencement of the Constitution of India vest in an
F Indian Legislature cannot be accepted in its entirety
because there are some powers which cannot obviously
be so claimed. In this context, the following observations
appearing at SCR p. 448 of the judgment should suffice:
(AIR p. 764, para 45)
G
"Take the privilege of freedom of access which is
exercised by the House of Commons as a body
and through. its Speaker 'to have at all times the
right to petition, counsel, or remonstrate with their
Sovereign through their chosen representative and
H
. JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 281
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
have a favourable construction placed on his words A
was· justly regarded by the Commons as
fundamental privilege' [Sir Erskine May's
Parliamentary Practice, (16th Edn.), p. 86]. It is
hardly necessary to point out that the House cannot
claim this privilege. Similarly, the privilege to pass B
acts of attainder and impeachments cannot be
claimed by the House. The House of Commons
also claims the privilege in regard to its own
Constitution. This privilege is expressed in three
ways, first by the order of new writs to fill vacancies c.
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 0
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."
E
195. The debate on the subject took the learned counsel
to the interpretation and exposition of law of Parliament as
is found in the maxim lex et consuetudo parliamenti as the
very existence of a parliamentary privilege is a substantive
issue of parliamentary law and not a question of mere F
procedure and practice."
46. In A. Kunjan Nadar vs. The State, AIR 1955
Travancore-Cochin 154, the High Court while dealing with the
scope of privileges under Article 194(3) of the Constitution held G
as under:-
"(3) Article 194(3) deals with the powers, privileges and
immunities of the Legislature and their members in Part
A states and Article 238 makes those powers, privileges
and immunities available to legislatures and its members H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A in the Part B states as well. Article 194(3) deals with the
privileges and immunities available to the petitioner in a
matter like this and they are according to that clause "such
as may time to time be defined by the legislature by law"
and until so defined, those of a member of the House of
B Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the
commencement of the constitution.
(4) As stated before, there is no statutory provision granting_,
the privilege or immunity invoked by the petitioner and it
is clear from May's Parliamentary Practice 15th Edn.
c 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.
D
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
(8) ...... So long as the detention is legal - and in this case
there is no dispute about its legality - the danger of the
petitioner losing his seat or the certainty of losing his daily
E
allowance cannot possibly form the foundation for relief
against the normal or possible consequences of such
detention."
47. In Dasaratha Deb case (1952), the Committee of
F Privileges-Parliament Secretariat Publication, July 1952, inter
alia, held that the arrest of a Member of Parliament in the
course of administration of criminal justice did not constitute a
breach of privilege of the House.
G 48. On 24.12.1969, a question of privilege was raised in
the Lok Sabha regarding arrests of some members while they
were stated to be on their way to attend the House. The Chair
ruled that since the members were arrested under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code and had pleaded guilty,
H no question of privilege was involved.
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 283
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
49. In order to constitute a breach of privilege, however, a A
libel upon a Member of Parliament must concern his character
or conduct in his capacity as a member of the House and must
be "based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the
business of the House." Reflections upon members otherwise
than in their capacity as members do not, therefore, involve any B
breach of privilege or contempt of the House. Similarly,
speeches or writings containing vague charges against
members of criticizing their parliamentary conduct in a strong
language, particularly, in the heat of a public controversy,
· without, however, imputing any mala fides were not treated by c
the House as a contempt or breach of privilege.
50. Similarly, the privilege against assault or molestation
is available to a member only when he is obstructed or in any
way molested while discharging his duties as a Member of the
Parliament. In cases when nfembers were assaulted while they D
were not performing any parliamentary duty it was held that no
breach of privilege or contempt of the House had been
committed.
51. Successive Speakers have, however, held that an E
assault on or misbehaviour with a member unconnected with
his parliamentary work or mere discourtesy by the police
officers are not matters of privilege and such complaints should
be referred by members to the Ministers directly.
52. 45th Report of the Committee of Privileges of the Rajya F
Sabha dated 30th November, 2000 stated as under:
"6. The issue for examination before the Committee is
whether CRPF personnel posted at Raj Bhawan in
Chennai committed a breach of privilege available to G
Members of Parliament by preventing Shri ·Muthu Mani
from meeting the Governor in connection with presentation
of a memorandum.
7. The Committee notes that privileges are available to
H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A Member of Parliament so that they can perform their
parliamentary duties without let or hindrance. Shri Muthu
Mani had gone to the residence of Governor for
presentation of a memorandum in connection with party
activities. Before Shri Muthu Mani reached there, two
B delegations of his party had been allowed to meet the
Governor. It appears that due to security related
administrative reasons the entry of another delegation of
which Shri Muthu Mani was a Member, was denied by the
Police officers. Since Shri Muthu Mani was present in
c connection with the programme of his political party,
apparently along with other party workers, it cannot be said
that he was in any way performing a parliamentary duty.
As such preventing his entry by lawful means cannot be
deemed to constitute a breach of his parliamentary
privilege."
D
53. Now, with regard to the contention of Mr. Venugopal,
viz., about the privileges available to the Assembly and its
Members, in case of arrest of employees of the Legislature
Secretariat within the precincts of the House, the Speaker of
E the Kerala Legislative Assembly, disallowing the question of
privilege, ruled that the prohibition against making arrest,
without obtaining the permission of the Speaker, from the
precincts of the House is applicable only to the members of the
Assembly. He observed that it is not possible, nor is it desirable
F to extend this privilege to persons other than the members,
since it would have the effect of putting unnecessary restrictions
and impediments in the due process of law.
54. The officers working under the office of the Speaker
G are also public servants within the meaning of Section 2(g) of
the Lokayukt Act and within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, therefore, the Lokayukt
and his officers are entitled and duty bound to make inquiry and
investigation into the allegations made in any complaint filed
before them.
H
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 285
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
55. The law applies equally and there is no privilege which A
t
prohibits action of registration of a case by an authority that
has been empowered by the legislature to investigate the
1
cases relating to corruption and bring the offender to book.
Simply because the officers happen to belong to th office of
the Hon'ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the, rovisions s
of the Lokayukt Act do not cease to apply to them. The law
does not make any differentiation and applies to all with equal
vigour. As such, the initiation of action does not and cannot
amount to a breach of privilege of the Legislative Assembly,
which has itself conferred powers in the form of a statute to c
eradicate the menace of corruption. It is, thus, clear that, no
privilege is available to the Legislative Assembly to give
immunity to them against the operation of laws.
56. In the present matfer, the petitioners have not made
any inquiry even against the members of the Legislative D
Assembly or the Speaker or about their conduct and, therefore,
the complaints made against the petitioners by some of the
members of the Legislative Assembly were completely
uncalled for, illegal and unconstitutional. The Speaker has no
jurisdiction to entertain any such complaint, which is not even E
maintainable.
57. Thus, it is amply clear that the Assembly does not.
enjoy any privilege of a nature that may have the effect of
restraining any inquiry or investigation against the Secretary or F
the Deputy Secretary of the Legislative Assembly.
58. Thus, from the above, it is clear that neither did the
House of Commons enjoy any privilege, at the· time of the
commencement of the Constitution, of a nature that may have
the effect of restraining any inquiry or investigation against the G
Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of the Legislative Assembly
or for that matter against the member of the Legislative
Assembly or a minister in the executive government nor does
the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly of the State or its
members. The laws apply equally and there is no privilege H
/•
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A which prohibits action of registration of a case by an authority
which has been empowered by the legislature to investigate the
cases. Simply because the officers belong to the office of the
Hon'ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the provisions
of the Act do not cease to apply to them. The law does not
B make any differentiation and applies to all with equal vigour.
As such, the initiation of action does not and cannot amount to
a breach of privilege of the Legislative Assembly, which has
itself conferred powers in the form of a Statute to eradicate the
menace of corruption.
c 59. The petitioners cannot, while acting under the said
statute, be said to have lowered the dignity of the very
Assembly which has conferred the power upon the petitioners.
The authority to act has been conferred upon the petitioners
under the Act by the Legislative Assembly itself and, therefore,
D the action taken by the petitioners under the said Act cannot
constitute a breach of privilege of that Legislative Assembly.
60. By carrying out investigation on a complaint received,
the petitioners merely performed their statutory duty and did not
E in any way affect the privileges which were being enjoyed by
the Assembly and its members. The action of the petitioners
did not interfere in the working of the House and as such there
are no grounds for issuing a notice for the breach of Privilege
of the Legislative Assembly.
F 61. Also, in terms of the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the
Lokayukt Act, any proceeding before the Lokayukt shall be
deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of
Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and as per
Section 11 (3), the Lokayukt is deemed to be a court within the
G meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioners have
merely made inquiry within the scope of the provisions of the
Act and have not done anything against the Speaker personally.
The officers working under the office of the Speaker are also
public servants within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the
H Lokayukt Act and, therefore, the Lokayukt and his officers were
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v. 287
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
entitled and duty bound to carry out investigation and inquiry A
into the allegations made in the complaint filed before them and
merely because the petitioners, after scrutinizing the relevant
records, found the allegations prima facie proved, justifying
detailed investigation by the Special Police Establishment
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the performance B
of duty by the petitioners in no way affects any of the privileges
even remotely enjoyed by the Assembly or its Members.
62. In the present matter, the petitioners have not made
. any inquiry against any member of the Legislative Assembly
or the Speaker or about their conduct and, therefore, the C
complaints made against the petitioners by some of the
members of Legislative Assembly were completely uncalled
for, illegal and unconstitutional.
63. Further, the allegations made in the complaint show o
that while dealing with the first complaint (E.R. 127/05), the
Lokayukt found that there was no material to proceed further
and closed that matter since the allegations alleged were not
established. While inquiring into the second complaint since the
Lokayukt found that the allegations made in the complaint were E
prima facie proved, SPE was directed to proceed further in
accordance with law.
64. On behalf of the petitioners, it is pointed out that the
facts and circumstances in the present matter show that
complaints have been filed by the Members not in their interest F
but for the benefit of the persons involved who all are public
servants. It is also pointed out that the action of breach of
privilege has been instituted against the petitioners since the
officers, against whom the investigation has been launched,
belong to the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat. G
65. We are of the view that the action being investigated
by the petitioners has nothing to do with the proceedings of the
· House and as such the said action cannot constitute any breach
H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A of privilege of the House or its members.
66. It is made clear that privileges are available only insofar
as they are necessary in order that House may freely perform
its functions. For the application of laws, particularly, the
provisions of the Lokayukt Act, and the Prevention of Corruption
8
Act, 1988, the jurisdiction of the Lokayukt or the Madhya
Pradesh Special Police Establishment is for all public servants
(except the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Madhya
Pradesh Vidhan Sabha for the purposes of the Lokayukt Act)
and no privilege is available to the officials and, in any case,
C they cannot claim any privilege more than an ordinary citizen
to whom the provisions of the said Acts apply. Privileges do
not extend to the activities undertaken outside the House on
which the legislative provisions would apply without any
differentiation.
D
67. In the present case, the action taken by the petitioners
is within the powers conferred under the above statutes and,
therefore, the action taken by the petitioners is legal. Further,
initiation of action for which the petitioners are legally
E empowered, cannot constitute breach of any privilege.
68. Under the provisions of Section 39(1)(iii) of tile Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every person who is aware of the
commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corn.1ption
Act is duty bound to give an information available with him to
F the police. In other words, every citizen who has knowledge of
the commission of a cognizable offence has a duty to lay
information before the police and to cooperate with the
investigating officer who is enjoined to collect the evidence.
G 69. In the light of the above discussion and conclusion, the
impugned letters/notices are quashed and the writ petition is
. allowed as prayed for. No order as to costs .
.~
R.P. Writ petition allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "legislative privilege"Sign in to search