New Delhi: • In the year 1964 a constitutional crisis warranted the President of India to consult Supreme Court of India, under article 143 of constitution resulted into a landmark verdict In Re: Keshav Singh AIR 1965. Keshav Singh a resident of Gorakhpur UP has been issued contempt notice for committing contempt of legislative assembly and also for committing breach of privileges of a member of house, because Keshav Singh got the pamphlet printed and signed pamphlet along with others, and for the afore said act Keshav Singh has been committed to District prison for a period of seven days, also for the act of writing disrespectful letter to the speaker of the house.
• Bail application filed before Lucknow bench, Allahabad High Court. Bail granted by the High Court with the direction to the Petitioner to remain present in the court on every hearing, and further the government was directed to file reply in the case.
Constitutional Crisis and unfolding of events.
• Instead of filing the reply on behalf of the legislative assembly, the legislative assembly passed resolution as under:
- Keshav Singh should immediately taken into custody and confined in District jail Lucknow,
- Both Hon’ble judges and the advocate should be brought in custody before the legislative assembly.
• The Hon’ble Judges on coming to know that they have been directed to be produced in custody before the UP legislative assembly, they invoked the writ jurisdiction.
The full bench judges of Allahabad High Court, admitted petition, issued notice, restrained the speaker from issuing the warrant in pursuance of direction to arrest and from securing execution of warrant if already issued, further restraining the government of UP and the marshal of the house from executing the said warrant.
• The advocate of Keshav Singh also filed writ petition praying for issuance of Mandamus and arrayed all the authorities of UP assembly and sought/prayed for prohibition of implementation of resolution passed by UP assembly the validity of which was challenged in the petition.
Again, full bench of 28 judges of Allahabad High Court heard the matter on 25th March 1964 and after admitting the petition passed interim order prohibiting the implementation of the resolution the validity of which was challenged by the petitioner.
Damage control exercise pursuant to full bench order undertaken by the UP assembly.
• On the same day i.e. 25 March 1964, clarificatory resolution as under was passed by assembly,
- house never intended to change against a High Court Judge for committing breach of privilege,
- contempt of house should be disposed off other than for any person,
- House resolved that contempt be decided after giving an opportunity to the judge for explanation,
- As a result of this resolution the warrant issued to the arrest of two leaned judges and advocate were withdrawn with the obligation that two Ld. Judges alongwith Advocate should appear and offer explanation as to why contempt should not be proceeded against them.
Constitutional crisis resulted into Presidential reference under Article 143(1) of Constitution of India.
• With the unfolding of events constitutional mess has been created and in view of conflict between High Court and State legislature the President of India exercised power under Article 143(1) of the constitution of India and made reference to the following questions to the Hon’ble Supreme court of India.
- Whether High Court is competent to examine the legality of contempt and breach of privilege initiated by the legislative assembly and passing orders granting bail to Mr. Keshav Singh?
- Whether two Hon’ble judges of High Court by entertaining the bail application filed by his advocate, Mr. B. Solomon and by granting bail to Mr. Keshav Singh has committed contempt of legislative assembly, state of UP?
- whether in the facts and circumstances of the case was it competent on the part of legislative assembly to issue production warrant against judges and Mr. Solomon Advocate who presented his case?
- whether in the facts and circumstances of the case was High Court competent to hold Full Bench hearing and to pass interim order staying warrant arrest issued against Hon’ble judges and Advocate?
- Whether a judge of High Court is competent to examine the order of house/legislative assembly which is violative of fundamental right/legal right of the person and whether by doing so does high court contempt of house and whether legislature is competent to take proceedings against a judge in exercise of power, privilege and immunities?
Judicial power and it’s extent as held and laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
• If the power of High Court under Article 226 and the authority of this court under Article 32 are not subject to any exception then it would be futile to contend that a citizen cannot move the High Court or this court to invoke their jurisdiction even in cases where his fundamental rights have been violated.
• The existence of judicial power in that behalf must necessarily and inevitably postulate the existences of a right in the citizen to move the court in that behalf otherwise power conferred on High Court and this court would be rendered virtually meaningless.
• It must not be forgotten that judicial power conferred on High Courts and this court is meant for the protection of the citizens fundamental rights and so in the existence of the said judicial power itself is necessarily involved the right to the citizen to appeal to the said power in a proper case.
• It is hardly necessary to emphasize that in the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens the legal profession play a very important and vital role and so just as the right of the judicature to deal with matter brought before them under Article 226 and Article 32 cannot be subjected to powers and privileges of house under Article 194(3), so the rights of citizens to move the judicature and the rights of advocates to assist that process must remain uncontrolled by Article 194(3). That is one integrated scheme for enforcing the fundamental rights and for sustaining the rule of law in this country. Therefore, our conclusion is that the particular right which the House claims to be an integral part of its power or privilege is inconsistent with the material provisions of constitution and cannot be deemed to have been included under the later part of Article 194 (3);
Answer to the presidential reference under article 143 (1) by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
- Lucknow bench of High Court is competent to entertain and deal with the Petition of Keshav Singh;
- B. Solomon Advocate by preferring the Petition to Hon’ble High Court and the judges while entertaining the Petition did not commit contempt of UP legislative assembly.
- Neither the legislative assembly competent to direct production of two Hon’ble Judges and Mr. B. Solomon Advocate before it in custody nor to call for their explanation for its contempt.
- The full bench was competent to pass interim order restraining the speaker of legislative assembly of UP and other respondents restraining to implement the directions of Legislative assembly.
- A judge of High Court who deals with Petition challenging either for its contempt or for infringement of its privilege and immunities and who passes any order on such Petitions does not commit contempt of the said legislature and the said legislature is not competent to take proceeding against such a judge in exercise and enforcement of its power privileges and immunities of any kind.
Conclusion
• The constitutional crisis ends with legal declaration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the judicial power embedded in article 226 and article 32 of the constitution is conceived with justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, meant for protection of citizen’s fundamental rights which is inherently existed in the existence of the said judicial power, and the said existence necessary involves the right of citizen to appeal to the said power in a proper case and the perfect case for the elucidation of the judicial power is the present case of Keshav Singh, which unequivocally commands that fundamental right is the sole of the constitution, a flame of justice and a palpitation of common citizenry.
The article can be summed up by putting on record the warning of Lord Atkin:
“Justice is not a cloistered virtue she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men”.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawStreet Journal.
