ARUNAVA GHOSH Vs. SPEAKER, WEST BENGAL LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Section 26 of the Constitution (44th) Act, 1978. He has also sought a declaration that Article 194 (3) of the Constitution is unworkable and that, its application in the facts of the present case resulted in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has also challenged the Memo dated August 26, 2013, the recommendation contained in the First Report of the Committee of Privilege 2012-2013 of the West Bengal State Legislature and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner on August 27, 2013.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner of reprimand and sentence to detention till the adjournment of the sitting of the West Bengal State Legislative Assembly is bad and should be quashed. He has submitted that, Part III of the Constitution has primacy over any law for the time being in force in India. He has referred to Article 13 and particular to Article 13 (2) and submitted that, Article 13 (2) prohibits making any law which takes away or up bridges the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. He has referred to and relied upon Article 19 of the Constitution and submitted that, a citizen has the Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression. Although, such Fundamental Right can be put under reasonable restriction, none of the grounds, recognised in law to be a reasonable restriction on such Fundamental Right of a citizen, exists in the facts of the present case.

(3.) Relying upon Article 20 of the Constitution, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, no person can be convicted of any offence expect violating a law in force at the time of commission of the so called offence. According to him, in the present case, there is no allegation of violation of any existing law, as, according to him, no law existed in the manner as claimed for it to be violated by the petitioner.