K KRISHNAMURTHI Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an erstwhile member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elected from Kumbakonam Constituency. The petitioner participated in the Tamil Nadu Assembly proceedings held on 28-1-1988.

(2.) The third respondent Commissioner of Police, had given a statement which had come to be published in all English and Tamil dailies. He was instructed by the fourth respondent, Speaker of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, to move in with neccssary police force to disperse the unruly elements and restore peace in the Tamil Nadu Assembly precincts on that day, viz., 28th Jan. 1988. The third respondent reiterated that there was a specific order from the fourth respondent to him. He and the police force entered into the Assembly only on orders from the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Thus, the third respondent has committed an act, which is unconstitutional and the same is justified by him. In fact, the third respondent had committed a crime without any jurisdiction in gross violation of the procedure established by law as contemplated under Art.21. The third respondent is an executive. He had failed to perform his fundamental duties and acted beyond his executive powers. In fact, he had taken the law into his own hands by saying that he was not one to be believed in going behind men to restore order in a place hit by riot. The third respondent's dictatorial attitude was indicated in his statement from the following line - 'I am not worthy of wearing the uniform if I do not perform my job in a situation like the one witnessed in the Assembly on 28th January 1988, especially when I happened to be in the vicinity.' The Constitution of India has clearly demarcated the functions of Executive, Judiciary and the Legislature. The third respondent has acted as a subordinate to the fourth respondent forgetting the fact that he is an executive under the State and not an employee of the fourth respondent. The third respondent is to function as per the orders given by the State and the executive actions performed by him are to he only on the instructions of the State and for any violation of any action to he construed as an illegal act of the State. The statement issued by the third respondent makes it crystal clear that he has not acted in pursuance of the directions or formal orders or any other instrument from the first and second respondents. R.123 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules does not enable the Speaker to claim such powers. It only empowers him to adjourn the house to the next sitting in case of grave disorder. The third respondent ought not to have responded to the illegal instruction without authority. Thus, the third respondent had violated the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules by obliging the fourth respondent when he is not empowered to do so. In fact, the doors of the Legislative Assembly were closed and there was a free violation with the aid of the third respondent. Even assuming for a moment that the fourth respondent has got a right to seek police assistance, it can only he channelised through the Government agents viz. first and second respondents since the Assembly precincts do not form part and parcel of the domain of the City Police Commissioner, the third respondent herein. The third respondent thus has violated Art.166 of the Constitution of India. The personal liberty was curtailed and the third respondent has disregarded the sanctity of life without observing the procedure established by law. The Tamil Nadu Government Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions framed under Art.166(2) and (3) of the Constitution clearly postulate not an oral order, but a written order. On these allegations, a writ of quo warranto is prayed for against the third respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates these contentions raised in the affidavit and contends that the third respondent had acted illegally and in violation of Art.166 of the Constitution, as a result of which action, Art.21 of the Constitution has been violated. Where therefore there is a violation of the provisions of the Constitution, then a writ of quo warranto could be issued. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on Pioneer Motors Ltd v. O. M. A. Majeed, AIR 1957 Mad 48.