JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Nand Lal Sharma presented this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India. 2. It has been contended by him that keeping in view the provisions of Articles 1 95, 106, 102 and 191 the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a pious object of establishing real supremacy of the Constitution. 3. It has been contended by the petitioner that the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers and Members Emoluments) Act, 1956 (Act No. 6 of 1957), as amended from time to time is liable to be struck down on the following grounds:- 1. That the pension which is being paid to the Ex-Members of the Legislative Assembly is violative of Article 195 of the Constitution of India. 2. That the salary, allowances and other privileges given to the Chief Whip, Deputy Whip and the Leader of Opposition are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. 3. That the Members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, as shown in Annexure 6, have been appointed on offices of profit in violation of Article 19 1 of the Constitution of India. 4. It was also contended that in violation of Articles 47,48, 37 and 39 of the Constitution of India the policy which has been laid down for development of agriculture, desert land, parks and industries, is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. 5. That the State Government is not enacting proper laws as envisaged under Article 19(4) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner in support of his contentions has advanced a series of arguments. A notice to show cause was issued to the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India. Along with the writ petition certain annexures have been produced by the petitioner. Annexure I deals with the brief history of Indian agriculture. Annexure 2 deals with the scientific survey in the Indian Desert. Annexure 3 deals with the various problems in various States. Annexure 4 deals with the problems relating to industries. Annexure 5 is the statement of Kanhaiyalal Soni in the Court of SDM, Jaipur dated 24-4-198. Annexure 6 is the list of 42 MLAs who have been appointed on certain posts. The conten- tion of the petitioner is that these are offices of profit and the State Government could not have appointed sitting MLAs on these posts. Annexure 5 is the statement of Kanhaiyalal Soni in the Court of SDM, Jaipur dated 24-4-198. Annexure 6 is the list of 42 MLAs who have been appointed on certain posts. The conten- tion of the petitioner is that these are offices of profit and the State Government could not have appointed sitting MLAs on these posts. 4. On behalf of the State preliminary objections have been raised. It has been contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition as no statutory legal or fundamental rights of the petitioner has been affected. PF It was further contended that the petition seriously suffers from misjoinder of different causes of actions and in one single writ petition the petitioner has challenged various provisions of law without raising specific issue in the writ petition. It was also contended that though a challenge has been thrown about the illegality of the pension being paid to the Ex-MLAs and Ex-Members of Parliament, but they have not been impleaded and no order can be passed against them behind their back. It was also contended that similarly 42 MLAs mentioned in Annexure 6 have not been impleaded by the petitioner to this writ petition. It was further contended that the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip and the leader of Opposition have also not been made parties to the writ petition. 5. It was further contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as unparliamentary and highly objectionable allegations have been made without any basis whatsoever against responsible persons. It was also contended that presentation of the writ petition in the present form is against the rules framed by the High Court relating to the presentation of the writ petition. It was also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs which he has claimed through this writ petition. 6. Reply to the writ petition has also been filed by the Union of India. It has been contended by the Union of India that the payment of pension to the Ex-Members of Parliament is being made under the Salary, Allowances and Pension of the Members of Parliament Act, 1954, as amended from time to time. Similarly, payment of pension to the Ex-MLAs is made under the same law passed by State Legislature as contemplated under Article 195 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, payment of pension to the Ex-MLAs is made under the same law passed by State Legislature as contemplated under Article 195 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that no salaries and allowances are paid to the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip in the Parliament in their capacity as such. Salaries and allowances of the Leader of opposition in both houses of Parliament are governed by "The Salaries and Allowances to Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act passed by the Lok Sabha on 8-8-1977 and in the Rajya Sabha on 9-8-1966. The Act received the concurrence of the President of India on 18-8-1977. It was further contended that the petitioner has given bent to personal feelings without raising any substantial ground and calls for no reply as it mainly affect the personnel of the State Government and the answering respondent has nothing to offer any reply. It was further contended that the spirits of the petitioner may be appreciated, but he has not made any representation in the Department of Parliamentary Affairs and, basides this it does not fall within the ambit of Department as well. It was further contended that the petitioner's grievances are principally against the State of Rajasthan and his prayer for settlement of claims which are said to be pending with the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, has got nothing to do with it. 7. It was further contended that the salaries and allowances and pensions of the MPs Act has been framed by the Parliament under the powers conferred by the Constitution and the various provisions of the bill have been thoroughly considered in both the Houses of Parliament and thereafter assented by the President and, since the law has been validly made by the Parliament, the same cannot be struck down. It was further contended that the Central Government formulates the legislative proposals as and when it considers appropriate. The over-all interest of the country is taken into account while formulating the proposals and no interference is called for from this Court. 8. The petitioner has tried to argue before this Court that the present form of Government is not suited to the present day need of the country. He has tried to enumerate the advantages which a presidential form of Government may have over the present Parliamentary form of Government. 9. 8. The petitioner has tried to argue before this Court that the present form of Government is not suited to the present day need of the country. He has tried to enumerate the advantages which a presidential form of Government may have over the present Parliamentary form of Government. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan has contended that the writ petition has not been filed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 22 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. It is also not in conformity with Rule 375. It was further contended that Rule 381 directs that any application under this Chapter shall be made by the Advocate and not by the party personally. 10. The contention of the State is that the application has not been properly constituted. It was further contended that a bare reading of the writ petition shows that a large number of causes of actions having no connection with each other have been jumbled together in this writ petition. Reliance has been placed on (1) Dhabai Sua Lal V. Indira Nehru Gandhi, AIR 1979 Raj. 130 , wherein it was held the writ petition was misconceived because various causes of actions have been joined. 11. The writ petition contains abusive and scandalous language regarding the elected members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. It was, therefore, prayed that the entire abusive and derogatory language should be ordered to be expunged from the writ petition. Reliance was placed on (2) Amalgamated Commercial Traders V. Hariprasad, AIR 1966 Mad. 161 , wherein it has been a or a held that every Court has an inherent power, quite independently of Order 6, Rule 16, CPC, to strike out scandalous matter in any record or proceeding. Under Section 151, the court has power to expunge scandalous allegations which are irrelevent to the proceedings, even though they are contained in an affidavit. But the allegations cannot be scandalous when they are relevant. 12. It was also contended on behalf of the State that the entire contents of the writ petition are of political nature. The petitioner has tried to impart a political lecture on various subjects including agriculture, animal husbandry and other subjects. The State budget has also been criticised. It has also been submitted that the present system of election of President, Prime Minister, M.Ps. and Members of legislative assemblies is not good. The petitioner has tried to impart a political lecture on various subjects including agriculture, animal husbandry and other subjects. The State budget has also been criticised. It has also been submitted that the present system of election of President, Prime Minister, M.Ps. and Members of legislative assemblies is not good. It has also been contended by the petitioner that eminent persons who may not be members of the Parliament or the State Legislature should be appointed as Ministers in the Central and State Governments. It was contended this Court only deals with the legal matters or statutory matters, but does not deal in political matters. Attention was invited to (3) Dinesh Chandra V. Chaudhury Charan Singh and (4) Prakash Vir Shastri v. Union of India, AIR 1974 Delhi 1 . 13. It was also contended that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. Reliance has been placed on(5) J.M. Desai V. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 578 and(6) Maganbhai V. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783 , wherein it has been held that Supreme Court would decline to issue a writ of mandamus except at the instance of a party whose fundamental rights are directly and substantially invaded. It was further contended that all the former MPs. and MLAs who are getting pensions under the provisions of the Act of Parliament and an Act of the State Legislature have not been impleaded. These persons were necessary parties and in the absence of these persons the writ petition is not maintainable. Similar objections have been raised for the MLAs who have been appointed by the State Government on various posts. It was also contended that the MLAs who have been appointed on different posts had been done so under the existing enactments or laws. If the petitioner wants to challenge their appointments then he has to bring a distinct case for each one of them, with reference to the laws governing their appointments and the posts which they are holding. 14. Respective contentions of the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. It appears that the petitioner feels highly aggrieved by certain state of affairs prevailing in the country which may not be to his liking. He appears to be strongly in favour of the presidential form of Government. 14. Respective contentions of the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. It appears that the petitioner feels highly aggrieved by certain state of affairs prevailing in the country which may not be to his liking. He appears to be strongly in favour of the presidential form of Government. According to him, a presidential form of Government would be much more suitable to this country relying on the following observations:- "It is axiomatic to say that a Constitution is for the people. Constitution is an organic law. People give to themselves the Constitution of their own choice to meet their aspirations. Constitution, however, is not sacrosanct. If at any time, situations arise and condition change both nationally and internationally and cannot be adequately met by the existing constitutional provisions, it is idle to contend that the Constitution will still remain unamendable for the reason that it is the basic law. As the country advances and grows from stage to stage, constitution must also change to meet the new urges. Change is the law of nature. Change is life, immoblility death. 'Tennyson in his poem on Coming of Arthur' voices the universal rule of change as the will of God:- "The old order changeth, Yielding place to new. And God fulfils Himself in many ways, Lest one good custom should corrupt the world." Politicians, political thinkers and writers have unanimously expressed themselves in foetor of amendability of the Constitution when the national interest so require. 15. Speaking in the Parliament on the First Amendment Bill to the Constitution in the year 1951 Pt. Jawaher Lal Nehru said:- "In any event we could not make this Constitution. so rigid that it cannot be adapted to changing conditions. When the world is in the turmoil and we are passing through a very swift period of transition, what we do today may not be wholly applicable tomorrow - "While we want this Constitution to be solid and permanent as we can make it, there is no permanence in the Constitutions. There should be certain flexibility. When the world is in the turmoil and we are passing through a very swift period of transition, what we do today may not be wholly applicable tomorrow - "While we want this Constitution to be solid and permanent as we can make it, there is no permanence in the Constitutions. There should be certain flexibility. If you make anything rigid and permanent you stop the nation's grow, the growth of living, vital, organic people." Earl Warrant Burger, formerly Chief Justice of the United States has said: "Neither the law nor the Constitution is too sacred to change the Constitution has been changing many times and the decision of judges are not wholly writs." Jafferso, father of the American Constitution, gave expression to a similar view in the following words "we may consider each generation as a distinct nation with a right by the will of the majority, to bind themselves but not to bind the succeeding generations." Thomas Paine in his book 'The Right of Man' observes : Every age end generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as ages and generations which preceded it. The vanity and the pre- sumptuousness of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies.' Citations can be multiplied on the subject. Temptation is great but I must close it with the words of Mulford quoted by J.W. Garner in his book 'Political Science and Government.' An unamendable Constitution is the worst tyranny. It places the spectre over a free people in the hands of dead men, and the only office left to the people is to build thrones out of the Stones of their sepulchres. Earth belongs to the living and the dead have neither the power nor the authority to bind the coming generations by laws made by them.' X X X X X X X X "It is in the fitness of things that a search be made from amongst the other Constitution of the elements which may rejuvenate and strengthen our Constitution. I propose to give a brief summary of the Fifth French Republic 1958, which is claimed to have been good Government to the French people. This Constitution appears to be an amalgam of Presidential 0 and the Parliamentary system of Governments. Articles 2 to 4 are on Sovereignty. French is declared a Republic, indivisible, secular, democratic and social. I propose to give a brief summary of the Fifth French Republic 1958, which is claimed to have been good Government to the French people. This Constitution appears to be an amalgam of Presidential 0 and the Parliamentary system of Governments. Articles 2 to 4 are on Sovereignty. French is declared a Republic, indivisible, secular, democratic and social. Equality of all citizens before the law without distinction of origin, race or religion is assured. National Sovereignty belongs to the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives. Political parties and groups play a part in the exercise of the right to vote. They are obliged to respect the principles of national sovereignty and democracy. 16. Article 5 to Article 19 relate to the President of the Republic. The President is elected for seven years by direct universal suffrage. The President appoints the Prime Minister and on the proposal of the Prime Minister, he appoints and dismisses the other members of the Government. He presides over the Council of Ministers. He promulgates the laws within 15 days following transmission to the Government when law is finally adopted. He can ask the Parliament to reconsider the law on certain articles. Such reconsideration cannot be refused. On the proposal of the Government during the Session of Parliament or on the joint session of the two Houses, he submits to referendum any bill dealing with the organisation of the public authorities. In the event of grave and immediate threat to the institutions of the Republic and when the regular functioning of the constitutional public authorities is interrupted, the President has the power to take measures demanded by these circumstances after official consultation with the Prime Minister, the Presidents of the two Houses and the Constitutional Council, he informs the Nation of these measures by a message. Articles 20 to 23 relate to the Government. Further survey is not necessary, as the other provisions are more or less similar to ours." ("Kind of Democracy India Needs by Shri D. D. Chawla, Senior Advocate, published in the Souvenir of All India Conference of Lawyers on safeguard democracy and secularism held on 25th October, 1980). 17. The State Government and the Union of India have raised preliminary objections to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to bring this writ petition as he has no locus standi and is not an aggrieved party. 17. The State Government and the Union of India have raised preliminary objections to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to bring this writ petition as he has no locus standi and is not an aggrieved party. The Union of India and the State Government have also raised the plea that the petitioner has Used unparliamentary scandalous language against respectable persons and the Government officials. 18. This Court cannot travel beyond its jurisdiction in adjudicating upon such type of issues which are not purely legal. It is not the domain of this Court to deliberate upon political issues. What type of Government suits to this country is a matter which is directly under the jurisdiction of the Parliament which is supreme. It appears from the record that the petitioner has been a freedom-fighter and has dedicated his life to the noble cause of service to the country. It is with this back ground that the petitioner appears to have inspired to move this writ petition. However, profoundly this Court may think of deliberating upon the various aspects of life upon which the petitioner has drawn the attention, but this Court would not travel beyond the legal framework within which it has to work. The petitioner has probably approached a wrong forum. If he feels so strongly about the points which he has raised, he should approach the proper forum with proper representations. 19. This writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner embraces various causes of actions of totally different issues. The persons who are directly affected can be safely said to be necessary parties, have not been impleaded. Number of enactments have been challenged which cannot be considered in the manner in which the petitioner has sought to do. The petitioner was not well advised in using unparliamentary and abusive language against the elected members of the Parliament and the State Legislature. These unparliamentary portions of the writ petition are directed to be expunged from the writ petition. 20. As the writ petition is wholly incompetent and suffers from non- joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of causes of actions and is not in the required form, this Court has no option but to reject the same as being incompetent. 21. These unparliamentary portions of the writ petition are directed to be expunged from the writ petition. 20. As the writ petition is wholly incompetent and suffers from non- joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of causes of actions and is not in the required form, this Court has no option but to reject the same as being incompetent. 21. Before parting with this writ petition, it is hereby made clear that the issues which have been raised by the petitioner have not been touched by this Court and any thing written above should not in any way be construed to be for or against any Act of the Parliament or the State Legislature. The merits of the case have not been gone into and the writ petition is being dismissed exclusively on the ground of being incompetent. 22. In the result, the writ petition is hereby dismissed being incompetent. 23. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. *******