I. MANILAL SINGH versus DR. H. BOROBABU SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 05-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

I. MANILAL SINGH 
A 
v. 
'r· 
DR. H. BOROBABU SINGH AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 5, 1993 
-4 
B 
[LM. SHARMA, CJ., M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.S. VERMA, 
K JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
....,.. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Altic/es 32, 129, 141, 142, 144, 145 and 361. 
Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, c 
1975: Rules 3, 6, 10 and 11. 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : Sections 2, 3, 12 and 13. 
Speaker of Legislative Assembl~Supreme Court's orders-Repeatedly 
~ 
resisting implementation of-l'rima facie case of contempt made out- D 
Repeated and categorical refusal to appear in Court-Claiming immunity as 
Speake,.-Govemment of India-Directed. to produce contemner in Court. 
· Or. H. Borobabu Singh, the first respondent in the Contempt Peli· 
lion held the office of Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly. 
E 
This Court having held that the Speaker while deciding the question 
of disqualification of a Member of the ·Legislative Assembly under the 
Tenth Schedule to the Constitution acts as a statutory authority, in which 
capacity the Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review by the High 
Court and this Court, made certain orders quashing the disqualification F 
of certain members of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. 
In spite of the clear decision of this Court it was submitted, the 
_,....., 
contemner continued to resist the lmplementati(ln of such orders made by 
this Court. 
The petitioner In the contempt petition I. Manilal Singh was then G 
the Secretary of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, and as the Secretary 
be took steps to Implement this Court's orders. The allegation made by · 
~ 
him was that the contemner Dr. H. Borobabu Singh got annoyed with him 
for bis attempt to secure obedience and implementation of this Court's 
/ 
orders and, therefore, as an act of reprisat, the contemner bad made an H 
769 
.~ 
no 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] l S.C.R. 
A 
order of his compulsory retirement. 
The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of his compulsory 
retirement, alleging that it was ma/a fide being an act of reprisal by the 
contemner for the petitioner's obedience of this Court's orders. This 
B 
Court stayed the operation of the order of compulsory retirement as well 
as the order of suspension passed by the contemner. The petitioner then 
complained that the contemner was not permitting him to function as the 
Secretary of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, and was also not paying 
him bis salary and other dues; and that another person bad been ap-
·~ 
pointed by the contemner to function as the Secretary. 
c 
On July 22, 1992, this Court made an order reiterating that the 
petitioner shall be allowed to function as the Becretary of the Manipur 
Legislative Assembly without delay and that all concerned will enable him 
to so function. Further directions were also given. 
D 
As a result of the grievance made by the petitioner that in spite of 
the orders of this Court, he was neither allowed to function as the 
Secretary nor paid his salary etc. another order was made on August 4, 
1992 directing the Chief Secretary of the State to ensure that the direction 
given for payment of dues was promptly obeyed. 
E 
On August 25, 1992 the Court after recording that the action to retire 
the petitioner from service on August 31, 1992 as Joint Secretary appeared 
to be prima fade in violation of the Court's order, stayed the operation of 
the order; expressen its concern at the apathy exhibited towards obedience 
of the mandate under Article 144 of the Constitution, and after bearing all 
F 
the counsel made an order directing that the Chief Secretary, Deputy 
• 
Secretary of the Legislative Assembly and the contemner should be per-
sonally present in Court at the next hearing in September 9, 1992. 
....__ 
On the aforesaid date the Chief Secretary and the Deputy Secretary 
G 
were personally present, but on behalf of the contemner bis Counsel 
sought an adjournment till September 22, 1992 on 'be ground that the 
Manipur Legisla:ivt Assembly was in session, which was granted. 
On September 25, 1992 the contemner did not appear in person but 
~ 
his Counsel filed an affidavit that he is immune from the directions of the 
H 
Court in view of his constitutional position as Speaker. The Court heard · 
~ 
I 
I 
MANILAL v. DR. H. BOROBABU 
771 
the Counsel and ~ected the contention, and alijourned the matter to A 
October 20,' tm; requiring the contemner to give a written undertaking 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.