LexPANDIT M. S. M. SHARMA versus DR. SHREE KRISHNA SINHA AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] Dalip Singh v. The Slale of Punjab Das Gupta f• August I. observation. It·had.not in that case to deal with a·rule w.liich did provide for compulsory retirement, at any age w·hatsoever irrespective of the length of. service put in. It will not be' pr'oper to read the observation~ in Doshi's" Gase referred to above as laying down the law that retirement undar the..rule we are considering must necessarily be regarded as dismissal cir removal within the meaning of Art. 311. . }Ve are therefore oI opinion that the High Court was right in holding that the order of compulsory retire- ment made against the appellant was not removal from service so as to attract the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution and that the suit was rightly dis- missed. 'The appeal Is accqrdingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. PANDIT M. S. M. SHARMA .- v. DR. SHREE KRISHNA -SINHA AND OTHERS. (:!} •. P. SINHA; c. J., JAFER IMAM, P. B. GAJENDRA- GADKll.R, A. K. SARKAR, K.- SUBBA RAO, - K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA and J. 0. SHAH, JJ.) State Legislature-Breach of Privilege-Decision of Court, if res-judicata betw.en parties-Constitution of India, Arts. I94(3), Ig(I)(a). The petitioner, the Editor of the Searchlight, an English daily newspaper published from Patna, was called upon to show cause before .the Committee of Privileges of the Bihar Legisla- tive .A:ssembly why. he should not be proceeded against for the breach of privilege of the Speaker and the Assembly for publish- ing 1tn)naccurate .account of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. He moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitu- tioµ for quashing the said proceediqg and the question for deci- sion in ~ubstance was whetjier the said ·privilege conferred ·by Art. 194(3) of the Constitution was subject to the fundamental 1 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 97 rights of a citizen under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This r960 Court by a majority found against the petitioner. Thereafter the Assembly was prorogued several times, the Committee of Pandit Privileges reconstituted and a fresh notice was issued to, the M. S. M. Sharma petitioner. By the present petition the petitioner ip. substance v. sought to reopen the decision, raise t~·e;same contrbv~rsy once Dr. Shree Krish~a again and contend that the majority detision was wrong. The Sinha 6- Others question was whether he could he allowed to do so. Held, that the general principles of res judicata applied and the judgment of this Court could not be allowed to be reopened and must bind the petitioner and the Legislative Assembly of Bihar and the reconstitution of the Committee of Privileges in the meantime could make no difference. Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, [1953) S.C.R. 154, applied. Since this Court had held that the Legislature had the power to control the publication of its proceedings and punish any breach of its privilege, there could be no doubt that it had com- . plete jurisdiction to carry on its proceedings in accordance with its rules of business and a mere non-compliance with rules of pro- cedure could be no ground for interference by this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Janardan Reddy v. The State of Hyderabad, [1951] S.C.R. 344, referred to. Prorogation of the Assembly does not meap. its dissolution and the only effect it has is to interrupt its proceedings which can be revived on a fresh motiqn to carry on or renew them. It was, therefore, not correct to contend that since the Assembly was prorogued several times since after the, alleged breach of privilege, the proceeding ml)st be deemed to be dead. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 176 of 1959. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Righ.ts. Basudeva Prasad, M. K. Ramamurthi, K. N. Keshwa and R. Mahalingier, for the petitioner. - Lal Narain Sinha, B. K. P. Sinha, L. S. Sinha and B. P .. Varma, for the respondents. M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, 0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, H. J. Umrigar and T. M. Sen, for the Attorney-General of India. 1960. August 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA C. J.-By this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner raises almost the same // 13 Sinha C. J. 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1961] i96o controversy as bad been done in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1958, which was beard and determ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.