HARENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. NITISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT may not be improper to premise that although the spirit of an instrument, especially of a Constitution, is to be respected not less than its letter, yet the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words. It would be dangerous in the extreme to infer from extrinsic circumstances that a case for which the words of an instrument expressly provide shall be exempted from its operation. Where words conflict with each other, where the different clauses of an instrument bear upon each other and would be inconsistent unless the natural and common import of words be varied, construction becomes necessary, and a departure from the obvious meaning of words is justifiable. But if in any case the plain meaning of a provision, not contradicted by any other provision in the same instrument, is to be disregarded, because we believe the framers of that instrument could not intend what they say, it must be one in which the absurdity and injustice of applying the provision to the case would be so monstrous that all mankind would without hesitation unite in rejecting the application".

(2.) WITH the help of the writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who, as indicated above, is a practising Advocate of this Court and professes to be a public spirited person, sought for a writ of quo warranto commanding removal of Dr. Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister of India, who was so appointed, on 22.05.2009, by the President of India. The petitioner also sought for a writ in the nature of quo warranto directing removal of Shri Nitish Kumar as the Chief Minister of Bihar, who was sworn in as Chief Minister of this State on 24.11.2010.

(3.) BEFORE we ascertain the correct interpretation attributable to Clause (1 -A) of Article 75 and Clause (1 -A) of Article 164, it is prudent to point out that Article 79 makes it clear that for the Union, there shall be a Parliament, which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People meaning thereby that the Parliament does not consist of the House of the People alone; but also includes the Council of the States and the President. In other words, Article 79 makes it clear that there are two Houses of Parliament, namely, the Council of States and the House of the People; and these two Houses, along with the President, constitute Parliament.