PANNA LAL AGYAN AND OTHERS Vs. HONBLE SPEAKER SHRI BAIRAM JHAKAR, HOUSE OF PEOPLE, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Honourable Member of Parliament was about to or had submitted resignation to resign his seat in Parliament from the constituency he represented to the Speaker. Upon this had followed this writ petition before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The resignation submitted by the Member of Parliament is under Clause (3) of Art. 101 of the Constitution of India. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are in effect (a) A writ of mandamus to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha directing him not to accept the resignation should he receive it, (b) a writ of mandamus to the Prime Minister restraining him from recommending the resignation of the Member of Parliament, if made and (c) a writ of mandamus to the Member of Parliament to withdraw his resignation, if made. There is a fourth relief sought also under what is 'deemed fit and proper' clause which seeks a relief from the Court to secure the ends of justice to save democracy. The petitioners upon their narration in the petition were not sure whether the resignation has been tendered. The petitioners refer to the resignation, as alleged resignation.

(2.) The Honourable Member of Parliament is Mr. Amitabh Bachchan. The constituency-Allahabad.

(3.) Before asking the petitioners their locus standi to present this petition, this Court required them to be sure or to satisfy this Court that it may have jurisdiction to interfere in a matter such as in issue in the writ petition. This Court put the proposition to the petitioners that the resignation, of which an issue was being made, is a resignation contemplated under Clause (3)(b)of Art. 101 of the Constitution and that this is a matter between Member of Parliament and the Speaker. This action is personal to the Member of Parliament, and the satisfaction in accepting the resignation is exclusive to the discretion of the Speaker. Would it be proper for this Court to issue a writ as to either of these persons ? To accept or not to accept a resignation of a Member of parliament is the conduct of business with which the Speaker is vested with discretion to accept it or to reject it. Can this Court interfere with this discretion ? The propriety apart, generally, this Court put the proposition to the petitioners that if Clause (2) of Art. 122 inhibits the discretion vested in this Court to restrain it from exercising it, may tantamount to interfere with the conduct of business or procedure to be followed by an officer and Member of Parliament, in reference to a right conferred.