YOGENDRA NATH HANDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have before us three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by three members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly respectively, by which they seek to challenge the validity of certain proceedings of the Rajasthan legislative Assembly taken on 26th February, 1966 and 28th February. 1966, and pray for issuances of appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondents. As the writ petitions raise certain common questions, they can conveniently be dealt with together.

(2.) WRIT petitions of Servashri Yogendra Nath Handa and Manikchand Surana were argued by Shri C. L. Agarwal and that of Shri Ramanand Aggarwal was argued by shri R. K. Garg The writ petitions referred to certain events that took place in the rajasthan Legislative Assembly on 26th Feb 1966 and 28th February 1966, and they are like this.

(3.) THE Governor of Rajasthan summoned the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly to meet for its budget session on 26th February, 1966, at 11. 00 a. m. Accordingly the assembly met in the Assembly Hall on 26th February. 1966. The Governor of rajasthan entered the Hall to deliver his address under Article 176 of the constitution However before the Governor could deliver his address, one of the three petitioners namely, Shri Ramanand Aggarwal started addressing the governor about his having issued certain Ordinances and for some other actions of his and he submitted that it would have been better of instead of issuing ordinances, the necessary. Bills were introduced in the Assembly itself At this the governor is said to have taken offence and he ordered the Serjeant-at-Arms of the assembly to turn out Shri Ramanand Aggarwal from the Assembly Hall and accordingly the Serjeant-at-Arms, respondent No. 5, forcibly removed Shri ramanand Aggarwal from the Assembly Hall. While Shri Ramanand Aggarwal was being so removed, another member Shri Ram Kisan is said to have protested against the treatment meted out to Shri Aggarwal. but this had no result and on the contrary Shri Ram Kishan was ordered by the Governor to be removed from the Assembly Hall and the Serjeant-at-Arms forcibly removed him as well. The protest was repeated by Shri Umrao Singh Dhabaria, another member of the rajasthan Legislative Assembly, and he suffered the same fate. Servashri yogendra Nath Handa and Manik Chand Surana were amongst those who also protested in turn and they too were removed. It is averred that in this way 12 members of the Assembly were removed from the Assembly Hall under orders of the Governor. Thereafter, it is alleged, that on a motion by Shri Maharawal Laxman Singh, leader of the Opposition Group, a resolution was passed by the House that the address of the Governor may be taken to have been read. The Governor then left the Assembly Hall. The meeting of the Assembly was then over, but it met again in the after-noon when some of the members, who had been expelled by the governor, attended the session, 27th February, 1966, was a holiday and, therefore, the Assembly met again on 28th February, 1966. On that day Shri Ram prasad Ladha, respondent No. 6, moved a resolution in the House to the effect that the conduct of all the 12 members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly including the petitioners amounted to obstruction to the Governor in reading his address and it also amounted to improper and indecent act which was also contempt of the Constitution and insult to the Nation and, therefore, these 12 members be suspended till the end of the current session. Certain members of the house including the petitioner Shri Manik Chand Surana raised objections about the admissibility of this motion, but the Speaker, after three hours discussion, admitted the motion and this motion expelling the 12 members including the petitioners for the remaining part of the current session was passed. The same day a motion was moved by two of the petitioners and some other members to the effect that the Governor had committed breach of privileges of the members and of the House by turning out certain member of the House from the Assembly hall with the aid of the Serjeant-at-Arms, as the Governor had no authority whatsoever in this behalf When this motion was moved, the Speaker of the assembly, respondent No. 4, reserved it for his further consideration saying that he would give his ruling after studying the various constitutional points raised by the movers. On 3rd March, 1966, one of the members of the Assembly moved a motion of thanks for the Governor for his address. At this, some members raised objections that as the address had not been delivered and the causes for summoning the Assembly not declared, there was no occasion for conveying thanks to the Governor. When this objection was raised the Speaker gave his ruling to thp effect fhat as the Governor had read some portions of his address occurring in the beginning and some at the end and as it had already been taken as read by the House, the objection raised had no force.