TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce dated 20th January, 2004 are unconstitutional, illegal, null and void. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the Session commenced on 29th January, 2004 was the first Session of the Lok Sabha in the year 2004, and there was no address by the President informing the Parliament, the cause of its summons as provided for and required under Article 87 (1) of the Constitution of India. The contention of the petitioner was that the first Session means, the Session, which is held first in point of time in a given year. According to him, the Session, which commenced on 29th January, 2004 was the first Session of the House of the year 2004. The sittings thereafter continued up to 5th February, 2004. 3. There is no dispute before us that the Fourteenth Session of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha commenced on 2nd December, 2003 and was adjourned sine die on 23rd December, 2003. Thereafter on 20th January, 2004, the Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, by way of a Notice informed all the Members of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha, duly stating that under Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the Speaker has directed that the Lok Sabha, which was adjourned sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 29th January, 2004 and no new Session was summoned. 6. In dealing with these contentions, we shall follow the sequence of events and examine the constitutionality of each happening that would clearly demonstrate that the matter lies in a narrow compass than what has been made to appear. 7. In the United Kingdom the Queen and two Houses of Parliament constitutes the Legislature so that the Queen is an integral part of the Legislature. 8. In India the same model has been adopted. Article 79 of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Parliament for the Union, which consists of the President and the two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of the State and the House of the People. Article 83 (2) provides that the House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of the House, except during a proclamation of Emergency, the period of five years may be extended for a period not extending one year at a time, and not extending in any case beyond six months after such proclamation cease to operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early suggests that (a) the President shall address at the commencement of the first session after each general election to the House of the People; and (b) at the commencement of the first session of each year. 13.The question is whether in this case was there any failure in complying with the requirement as provided for under Article 87 (1) of the Constitution? 14. In the present case, the Winter session of the House of the People commenced on 2nd December, 2003 and was adjourned sine die on 23rd December, 2003. The resumption of its sittings on 29th January, 2004, by no stretch of imagination, could be characterized as commencement of a new session. The House merely resumed its sittings and continued the Session which actually commenced on 2nd December, 2003. As it is evident from the record, the House was adjourned sine die on 23rd December, 2003, the resumption of its sittings is nothing but reconvening of the same Session after its adjournment sine die. It is the second part of the same session. 15. The words first session of the year employed in Article 87 (1) has no reference to resumption of the adjourned session. The session commences with the President' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d amendment and observed: Before article 87(1) was amended in its present form by the Constitution (First Amendment Act, 1951, the article required the President to address both the Houses assembled together at the commencement of each session. Accordingly, the President addressed each of the three sessions held in 1950 of the Provisional Parliament. During the Third Session, a question arose whether the next session might commence with the President's Address or would the session be merely adjourned to meet again on 5 February, 1951, which would obviate the necessity of the President's Address. Speaker Mavalankar, in this connection, suggested that instead of the President addressing each session, it might be provided that he would give his Address at the commencement of the first session (First Amendment) Bill, 1951, as reported by the Select Committee, observed: The real difficulty of course is that this (Address) involves a certain preparation outside this House which is often troublesome. Members are aware that when a coach and six horses come, all kinds of things have to be done for that purpose. Anyhow, that trouble does not fall on the House or members there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice prevalent till then has been noticed in the same treatise which is to the following effect: The Eighth Session of the Eighth Lok Sabha commenced on 23 February, 1987 and was adjourned sine die on 12 May, 1987. The Lok Sabha, however, was not prorogued. On a proposal from the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, the Speaker, exercising his powers under proviso to Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, agreed to reconvene the sittings of Lok Sabha from 27 July to 28 August, 1987. The two parts, preceding and following the period of adjournment of Lok Sabha sine die on 12 May, 1987, were treated as constituting one session divided into two parts namely, Part I and Part II. On conclusion of the second part of the Eighth Session, Lok Sabha adjourned sine die on 28 August, 1987 and was prorogued on 3 September, 1987. 23. It is thus clear that whenever the House resumes after it is adjourned sine die, its resumption for the purpose of continuing its business does not amount to commencement of the session. The resumed sitting of the House, in this case, on 29th January, 2004, does not amount to commencement of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouse by Shri Varkala Radhakrishnan and some other Members on 30th January, 2004 and the Hon'ble Minister of Parliamentary Affairs had responded to the points raised by the Members on that day. Shri Somnath Chatterjee has contended that was commenced on 29th January, 2004 was the first Session of the year. I would like to clarify that there is no mention of adjournment sine die of the House in the Constitution. As per the provisions of the Constitution, a Session of the House comes to an end when the House is prorogued. As the House was not prorogued after its adjournment sine die on 23rd December, 2003 this Session can, at best, be treated as the second part of the Fourteenth Session of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha notwithstanding the fact that the calendar year has since changed. I am giving an illustration; I am giving a precedent regarding the Third Lok Sabha. On 11th December, 1962 the House adjourned to meet on 21st January, 1963. This was treated as Part-II of the same Session. I may inform the House that in the past also there have been occasions when after adjournment sine die of the House, the Lok Sabha was re-convened before prorogation. ....For example, the Eigh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prayer in the writ petition is to declare the proceedings in the Lok Sabha pursuant to the Notice dated 20th January, 2004 issued under the directions of the Speaker as unconstitutional. The petitioner is essentially raising a dispute as to the regularity and legality of the proceedings in the House of the People. The dispute raised essentially centers around the question as to whether the Speaker's direction to resume sittings of the Lok Sabha which was adjourned sine die on 23rd December, 2003 is proper? The Speaker is the guardian of the privileges of the House and its spokesman and representative upon all occasions. He is the interpreter of its rules and procedure, and is invested with the power to control and regulate the course of debate and to maintain order. The powers to regulate Procedure and Conduct of Business of the House of the People vests in the Speaker of the House. By virtue of the powers vested in him, the Speaker, in purported exercise of his power under Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha got issued notice dated 20th January, 2004 through the Secretary General of the Lok Sabha directing resumption of sittings of the Lok S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(1) observed that it may be possible for a citizen to call in question in the appropriate Court of law, the validity of any proceedings inside the Legislature if his case is that the said proceedings suffer not from mere irregularity of procedure, but from an illegality. If the impugned procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it would be open to be scrutinized in a Court of law, though such scrutiny is prohibited if the complaint against the procedure is no more than this that the procedure was irregular. The same principle would equally be applicable in the matter of interpretation of Article 122 of the Constitution. 1965 (1) SCR 413 30. The Notice dated January 20, 2004 is self-explanatory and reveals that the House was adjourned sine die on 23rd December, 2003 by the Speaker. It is the Speaker's direction to resume its sittings from 29th January, 2004 onwards. The Notice clearly says that it was the second part of the fourteenth session and was likely to conclude on 5th February, 2004. The Speaker's decision adjourning the House sine die on 23rd December, 2003 and direction to resume its sittings e in part two ssentially relates to proceedings in Parliament and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, that according to the previous decision of this Court, the petitioner has not the fundamental right claimed by him. He is, therefore, out of Court. Secondly, the validity of the proceedings inside the Legislature of a State cannot be called in question on the allegation that the procedure laid down by the law had not been strictly followed. Article 212 of the Constitution is a complete answer to this part of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. No Court can go into those questions which are within the special jurisdiction of the Legislature itself, which has the power to conduct its own business. Possibly, a third answer to this part of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that it is yet premature to consider the question of procedure as the Committee is yet to conclude its proceedings. It must also be observed that once it has been held that the Legislature has the jurisdiction to control the publication of its proceedings and to go into the question whether there has been any breach of its privileges, the Legislature is vested with complete jurisdiction to carry on its proceedings in accordance with its rules of business. Even though it may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
