SUDARSANA BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, complaining about the denial of press pass to the staff correspondent of the "desabhimani", for the session of the Kerala Legislative Assembly which commenced from the last week of February. It is alleged that the practice has been to issue passes to accredited correspondents, that Sudarsana Babu, the correspondent concerned, has been enjoying this facility for three years, and that when the current session commenced, the usual pass was denied to him on the directions of the Speaker, though passes were issued to all the other 74 accredited correspondents. The facility was denied to Babu alone, without assigning any reason, without even informing him, and without a hearing also. The first respondent is the State of Kerala, which is said to be the accrediting agency. The 2nd respondent is the Speaker. The 3rd respondent is the secretary of the Assembly, responsible for signing the pass. The action is challenged on the following, among other grounds:- [i] Babu has been singled out for discriminatory treatment, in a manner violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution; [ii] denial of the necessary facility to report the proceedings of the Assembly amounts to a violation of the rights recognised by art. 361a of the Constitution; [iii] R. 309 of the Rules of Procedure made under Art. 208 of the Constitution can only be subject to the provision of the Constitution, and therefore the Rule and the action taken in exercise of power thereunder cannot affect the fundamental and other constitutional rights of the petitioner; and [iv] Art. 212[2] is not attracted, because admission of strangers to the Visitors' Gallery or the Press Gallery is not a matter pertaining to regulation of procedure and conduct of business in the legislature.

(2.) WHEN the petition was posted for admission before me on 7-3-1983, I felt that it raised important questions about the scope of art. 14,19 (1) (a), 208, 212 and 361a of the Constitution, and admitted it. R. 149 of the High Court Rules reads: Every petition shall, soon after it is numbered, be posted for orders of Court for admission. The Court may upon hearing the petitioner or his advocate, either admit the same or reject it. On admission notice shall be ordered to the respondents and along with the notice copies of the application, affidavit and annexures shall be served on the respondents. " But on 10-3-83, before office could issue notice, the advocate General filed a "statement" in court on behalf of the 1st respondent, suggesting that the Speaker and the Secretary of the Legislative assembly be removed from the party array. The relevant part of the statement reads: 'i have been instructed by the State Government to apprise this Hon'ble Court of the correct constitutional provision regarding the issuance of notice to the Speaker and the Secretary of the Kerala legislative Assembly so that the names of respondents 2 and 3 may be removed from the party array in the above Original Petition " That is how the matter has come up again; and the question is whether any constitutional provision precludes this Court from issuing notice to the Speaker and the Secretary of the Assembly, in a matter like the present.

(3.) I shall assume that immunity from jurisdiction of courts means immunity from notice under R. 149 also. I shall further assume for a moment (and a moment only) that the respondents have only exercised power conferred on them under the Constitution in a matter covered by Art. 212 Even so, the question arises whether the said powers or the exercise thereof can transcend the provisions of the Constitution, including those in Part III.