SPECIAL REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 1964 versus .

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 30-09-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 26 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
413 
SPECIAL REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 1964 
September 30, 1964. 
(P. B. G;.JENDRAGADKAR, C.J., A. K. SARKAR, K. SunA RAo, 
K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH 
B 
AND N. R.AJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ConJtitution of India, Art. 143(1)-Reference under, whether mUJt 
relate to matterJ pertaining to President's powers and duties unlier t,he 
ConJtltution-Refusa/ to answer when jurtifiable. 
Co1'!3titution of· India, Art. 194(3)-Privileges of Hou>e of Com-
mons conferred on Indian State Legislatures--Power to commit for con-
tempt by conclwlve general warrant whether one of such prlvl/eg•:t-
Privlleges whether 1ubject to provision. of the 
Corutitution 
and to 
fundamental rights-Power to determine scope of privi/egeJ whether 
rests entirely with legislatures to the exclusion of the CourtJ. 
Constitution of India, Arts. 32, 226-Power of Supreme Court and 
High Courts to entertain petitions challenging legality of committals for 
contempt by State Legislatures-Power to 
interfere where 
breach of 
fundamental rights alleged. 
Constitution of India, Art. 211-Whether directory or mandatory-
/ts impact on Art. 194(3). 
The Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh committed 
one Keshav Singh, who was not one of its' members, to prison for its 
contempt. 
The warrant of committal did not contain the facts consti-
tuting the alleged contempt. 
While . undergoing imprisonment for the 
committal, Kcshav Singh through his Advocate moved a petition under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution and s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure, challenging his committal as being in breach of his fundamental 
righ"'; he also prayed for interim bail. 
·nie High 
Court 
(Lucknow 
Bench) gave notice to the Government Counsel who accepted it on 
behalf of all the respondents including the Legislative AMembly. 
At 
the time fixed for the hearing of the bail application the Government 
Counsel did not appear. 
Beg and Saghal JJ. who heard the application 
ordered that Keshav Singh be released on bail pending the decision of 
his petition under Art. 226. 
The Legislative 
Assembly found 
thal 
Keshav Singh and his Advocate in moving the High Court, and the two 
Judges of the High Court in entertaining the petition and granting bail 
had committed contempt of the Assembly, and passed a resolution that 
all of them be produced before it in 
custody. 
The Judges and 
the 
Advocate thereupon· filed writ petitions before the High Court at Allaha-
bad and a Full Bench of the High Court admitted their petitions and 
ordered the stay of the execution of the Assembly's resolution against 
them. The Assembly then passed a clarificatory resolution which modified 
its earlier stand. 
Instead of being produced in custody, the Judges and 
the Advocate were asked to 
appear 
before 
the 
House 
and 
offer 
•heir explanation. 
At this stage the President of India made a 
Reference under Art. 
143(1) of the Constitution in which the whole dispute as to the consti-
tutional relati0nship between the High Court and the State Legislative 
including the question whether on the facts of tho case Keshav Singh 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1965] I S.C.R. 
his Advocate, and the two Judges, by their respective acts, were guilty 
A 
of contempt of the State Legislature, wa< referred to the Supreme Court 
for its opinion and report. 
At the hearing of the Reference a preliminary objection as to the 
competency of the Reference was raised on behalf of the Advocate· 
Gener.I of Bihar, on the ground that it did not relate to any of the 
matters covered by the President's powers and duties Wlder the Con· 
slitution. It was also urged that even if the Reference was competent, 
B 
lhe Court should not answer it as it was not obliged to do so, and the 
answers given by it would not help the !'resident in solving any of the 
<lilficulties with which he might be faced in di9Charging his duties. The 
Court did not accepL these contentions and proueded to hear the par· 
ties which fell, broadly, into two groups-those supporting the Assembly 
.and thooe supporting the High Court. 
On behalf of the As&embly it was urged 
that by 
virtue of Art. 
C 
194(3) of the Constitution all the powers, privileges, and immunities 
<>f the House of Commons of the United Kingdom had been conferred 
on it. 
It was the sole judge of its privileges and the Courts had no 
jurisdiction to interfere with their exercise. 
In the alternative, it was 
coolended that Courts in England never

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