RAJ NARAIN SINGH Vs. ATMARAM GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applicant, Shri Raj Narain Singh, is a member of the U. P. Legislative Assembly having been returned on the Praja Socialist Party ticket which is the main opposition party in the Legislative Assembly, He has the distinction of being the parliamentary leader of that party and, as such, is the leader of the opposition. The opposite parties to this application are the Speaker of the Assembly, Shri A, G. Kher, and the Secretary, Shri Kailash Chandra Bhatnagar. The reliefs sought by the applicant are that this Court may be pleased (a) to declare that the resolution of the U. P. Legislative Assembly dated the 30th March 1953 is void on the ground of inconsistency with the provisions of part III of the Constitution, (b) to call for the records of the U. P. Legislative Assembly proceedings dated the 30th March 1953, the proceedings of the privileges Committee dated the 7th, 17th, 25th and the 26th March 1953 and quash the resolution dated the 30th March 1953, (c) to issue a suitable order, writ or direction asking the opposite parties to expunge the abovementioned resolution of the said Assembly dated the 30th March 1953 from the proceedings of the U. P. Legislative Assembly and (d) to order the payment of costs to the petitioner.

(2.) I should have been disposed to reject this application on the simple ground that it is not competent to this Court, for reasons to be indicated hereafter, to grant the reliefs asked for, had it not been for the fact that the learned Advocate-General has made it clear that the opposite parties do not wish to take their stand on the technical ground that the reliefs are not properly framed. Repeatedly this Court has emphasised that a party seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution should precisely state what writ, order or direction it is that he seeks for redressing a wrong which affects him personally. That the prayer for relief in this application has not been properly framed and does not clearly indicate the exact nature of the relief sought is not, indeed, denied by learned Counsel for the applicant. It is urged, however, that the writ jurisdiction being comparatively a new one so far as this Court is concerned and its practice being largely unfamiliar to the Lucknow Bench of the Court, we should not reject the application on the ground of the unsatisfactory nature of the prayer, if we are satisfied that the case is otherwise a fit one for granting some kind of relief. It is contended that we should look to the substance rather than to the form of the relief and that if that be done it will be found that what the applicant seeks is that the wrong done by a resolution which the applicant maintains was illegal and affected his rights as a member of the legislature should be redressed. I would however, like to point out that the reliefs as they stand do not seek to enforce a personal right of the applicant which has beer infringed. The applicant has merely asked for a declaratory relief. No relief is claimed quashing any unjust punishment supposed to have been inflicted upon the applicant in violation of any fundamental right. Further, it will be observed that there is no prayer seeking for a relief restraining any authority from carrying out that punishment which has, indeed, exhausted itself. The point that I wish to make is that the relief as claimed has no relation to the rights of the petitioner. An application for a writ in the nature of mandamus or such like order or direction is not maintainable unless it has been filed by a person whose right is said to have been directly affected (see - 'indian Sugar Mills Association v. Secy. to Govt. , Uttar Pradesh. Labour Department, Lucknow' (FB) (A) ).

(3.) IT will be seen that the writ is directed against the Speaker of the U. P. Legislative Assembly and the Secretary of the said Assembly. Why Mr. Speaker and the Secretary have been impleaded has not been explained because, as far as I can see, no relief save relief (c), is sought against both or either of them. The relief really sought is against a resolution of the U. P. Legislative Assembly, There is no doubt, therefore that the case is unique inasmuch as it impleads the Speaker and confuses him with the legislature. It is well known that no writ, direction or order restraining the Speaker from allowing a particular question to be discussed or interfering with the legislative processes of either house of the legislature or interfering with the freedom of discussion or expression of opinion in either house can be entertained. On this part of the case, I may quote Article 285 of Mr. Ferris's Extraordinary Legal Remedies, It runs as follows: Under the common law mandamus is Issued in the King's name to inferior Courts, officers, corporations or persons. Being in the King's name, it did not run to himself; 'nor did it run to Parliament', nor to the judiciary, except to such inferior Courts as the higher Courts had the power to review. Under our system of Government the executive power answers to that of the King, the legislative power takes the place of parliament, and the judicial power is vested in Courts established in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Where the force and effect of the common-law writ of mandamus, and its objects and purposes are unchanged, it follows that the writ never issues to the legislative branch of the Government. It is scarcely necessary to say, therefore, that under our form of Government, members of the legislative departments cannot be directly controlled in the exercise of their legislative powers by mandamus, or any other judicial process. Thus the legislature cannot be compelled to pass an act, even though the Constitution expressly commands it, nor be restrained from passing an Act, even though the Constitution expressly prohibits it. If it neglects or refuses to act, the responsibility is with the legislature alone. It may further be mentioned that the resolution complained against was passed on the 30th March 1953 and its effects lasted for three days, i. e. , till the 2nd April 1953 on which date the parliamentary punishment inflicted on the applicant exhausted itself. The writ was moved on the 2nd April 1953 and it is strange that in the writ application no relief either of an interim nature or of a substantive nature against the punishment inflicted was claimed. On the face of it, the writ does not seek to claim any personal relief but asks merely for a declaration of an academic nature regarding the validity of a resolution passed by the legislature. I may point out that in a recent Pull Bench case of this Court, to which I was a party, it was held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be utilised for the purpose of granting merely declaratory reliefs. It is well known that Professor Dicey calls what Lord Birkenhead would have designated 'controlled legislatures' non-sovereign legislatures which are not constituent but within certain limits legislative assemblies, (vide Dicey's Law of the Constitution, page 101 ). He points out that, while the Courts have the right to pronounce, and, indeed, are bound to pronounce, on the validity of any law passed by such legislatures, no judge or Court declares invalid or makes void a law or regulation unless in a particular case the Court before which the proceedings take place is called upon to consider by the party affected by it whether the Act or regulation or bye-law which has been broken is within the powers given to the legislature by the constitution making body (see Dicey's Law of Constitution, 9th Edn. , pp. 100-102 ). Reference may also be made to Rule 1 (2) of Chapter XXII of the Rules of this Court. That rule requires an application under Article 226 not only to see out in numbered paragraphs the grounds upon which the Court is asked to issue a direction, order or writ but also to specify in the prayer clearly, so far as circumstances permit, the exact nature of the relief sought. Undoubtedly, the prayer for relief in this case has not been framed with due regard to the considerations to which attention has been drawn above. While inviting our attention to the defects in the prayer for relief, the learned Advocate General, however, stated that he did not want a decision on technical grounds alone as not only a question of the status and the dignity of the Speaker but also that of the legislature was involved, While we would have been justified in dismissing this application on the simple ground that the reliefs asked for were neither precisely nor intelligibly stated, I think that having regard to the importance of the case and the issue that it raises and the further fact that the procedure in regard to writ applications is not Very well understood, even after the framing of the hew High Court Rules, it is not desirable to rest our decision on technical grounds alone. With these preliminary observations, I shall now proceed with a narration of the facts which have led to the filing of the present application.