LexCAPT. VIRENDRA KUMAR, ADV. versus SH. SHIV RAJ PATIL, SPEAKER LOK SABHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CAPT. VIRENDRA KUMAR, ADV. v. SH. SHIV RAJ PATIL, SPEAKER LOK SABHA JULY 29, 1993 (M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. AND S. MOHAN, J.] Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32, 105, 124(5)-Motion of Im- peachment-Voting in Parliament-Nature of Process-Held: Political-Par- liament sovereign in the conduct of its business. A B This Writ Petition related to the motion ofimpeachmt11t of Judge of C this Court. The Petitioner contended that he served on the Speaker of Lok Sabha, a commnnication addressed to the members of a parliament and had this communication been circulated, the MPs would have refused to obey the last minute oral whip issued by certain political parties to abstain · from voting. The petitioner also contended that since the proceedings D before Parliament are quasi judicial in nature, the Speaker of the Lok . Sabha ought to have intervened and ordered the MPs to be present in the House and vote, and that the Speaker failed in his duty. The petitioner therefore urged that the voting process be repeated afresh, after circulat· ing his commlmication to the MPs. · · Dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court HELD: 1. At the stage ofvoting on the motion, the process is political. The Parliament is sovereign with respect to conduct of its business. This Court cannot have any say in that political process. If, therefore, members E had chosen to be absent, it entirely depends upon their will. [448-G] F Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India & 010-., [1991] 4 sec 699; followed. TRS Allan, "The limits of Partiamenta1y Sovereignty" (1985) Public Law 614; relied on. G Taj Kiran v. Sanjiva Reddy, AIR (1970) SC 1573; referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 216 of 1993. ,(l)nder Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 443 H 444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A Petitioner-in-person. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. Impelled by a desire to espouse a public cause, so the petitioner claims, this Writ Petition has come to be preferred. The cause B relates to the motion of impeachment of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, a Judge of this Court. Notice was given by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha for presenting an address to the President for removal of Mr. Justice V. C Ramaswami. On March 12, 1991 the motion was admitted. The Committee was constituted in terms of section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act.After the Committee rendered its finding the motion was to be taken up by the Member of Parliament for consideration on 10th May, 1993. The Petitioner alleges that he served on the Speaker of the Lok D Sabha a nine page communication for circulation to the Members of the Parliament. On 8th May, 1993 the Congress (I) publicly announced the Members of Parliament to cast "a conscience vote" while the AIADMK party had announced that it would abstain from voting. The petitioner coming to know about the non-circulation of the petitioner's papers by the E Speaker, circulated the sets of the papers to the press and the other media so that the Members of Parliament might know about these papers and demand it from the Speaker before casting the censcience vote. The petitioner urges that the press did not publish and the other media did not announce the news of the papers presented to the Speaker. The impeach- ment proceedings were take~ up. After the learned counsel for the Judge F concluded his arguments, the voting was to take place. The Congress party issued an oral whip to abstain from voting. It is this abstention, which is questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition. G The petitioner would urged had the petitioner's papers been circu- lated, the Members of Parliament would have refused to obey the last minute oral whip. The speaker's permission to allow a counsel to appear for the Judge and argije the case'before the house was no permitted either by the Judges (Inquiry) Act of the Constittftion. This possibly helpedfthe Members of H Parliament to obev the last minute oral whip as there was no counsel .. CAPT.V.KUMAR v. S.R.PATIL[MOHAN,J.] 445 appointed to speak on behalf of the House and no debate was allowed. A Issuance of oral whip was illegal. The proceedings before the Parliament are quasi judicial in nature. Therefore, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha ought to have intervened and ordered the Members of Parliament present in the House to vote. The · Speaker failed in his duty because t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.