Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 326 (ALL)

Udit Chandra v. Union of India Thru Secy.

2014-01-28

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J. In a petition, which has been filed by three practicing Advocates purportedly in the public interest, two reliefs have been sought. The first relief is for a mandamus declaring that respondent Nos. 5 to 60 stand disqualified from being members of Parliament. The second relief is for a mandamus to the Hon'ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Hon'ble Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to initiate action against respondent Nos.5 to 60 for disqualification. 2. The basis on which the jurisdiction is invoked is that on 26 November 2012, a letter was addressed to the President of the United States by the aforesaid members of Parliament in regard to the grant of a Visa to the Chief Minister of an Indian State. The petitioners state that as a matter of fact, some of the alleged signatories subsequently clarified that they had not signed such a letter. According to the petitioners, their right to life under article 21 of the Constitution is prejudicially affected when a member of Parliament has "internationalized" what is stated to be "an internal matter". 3. Article 102 of the Constitution provides for disqualification for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament. Under Clause (d) of article 102 (1) of the Constitution a disqualification is attracted inter alia where a person is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State and under Clause (e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament. 4. The petitioners invoke the provisions of Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in submitting that an act of disloyalty to the State shall incur a disqualification. 5. Article 103 (1) of the Constitution stipulates that if any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision of the President and his decision shall be final. Under clause (2) of article 103, the President before giving any decision on any such question, has to obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and has to act according to such opinion. Article 105 deals with the powers and privileges of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof. 6. Under clause (2) of article 103, the President before giving any decision on any such question, has to obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and has to act according to such opinion. Article 105 deals with the powers and privileges of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof. 6. We are affirmatively of the view that this Court in its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in a petition of this nature, cannot issue a mandamus of the nature that has been sought. Whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of article 102, has to be referred for the decision of the President whose decision shall be final. 7. In Raja Ram Pal Vs. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 184 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court elucidated the guiding principles relating to the parameters of judicial review pertaining to the exercise of Parliamentary powers and privileges. In that regard the Supreme Court held as follows: - "431. (c) The expediency and necessity of exercise of power or privilege by the legislature are for the determination of the legislative authority and not for determination by the courts." 8. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the manner of enforcement of privilege by the legislature can result in judicial scrutiny subject to the restrictions contained in other constitutional provisions such as article 122 and article 212(1). 9. Though the petitioners have invoked the provisions of article 21 of the Constitution, it is not possible to accept the submission that their right to life has been prejudicially affected by the action which is complained of. 10. This Court, in the circumstances, would not issue a mandamus declaring that the respondent members of Parliament stand disqualified or directing the Hon'ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Hon'ble Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to initiate action against them. Such reliefs clearly lie outside the purview of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution. 11. Hence, having considered the reliefs which have been sought in these proceedings, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain this petition. 12. Such reliefs clearly lie outside the purview of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution. 11. Hence, having considered the reliefs which have been sought in these proceedings, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain this petition. 12. In the alternate, after the conclusion of the judgment, the petitioners, who have appeared in person pray that the representation which they have submitted may be directed to be disposed of by the second respondent, namely the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. 13. Quite apart from the fact that such a relief has not been sought in this petition, having found that this Court would not entertain a petition seeking a writ of mandamus of the nature as prayed, we find no reason or justification in law to issue any such direction. There is no statutory or Constitutional basis for such a representation for which the Court can issue a mandamus to a duly constituted Parliamentary or Constitutional Authority. 14. We have also found no merit in the contention advanced by the petitioners that the jurisdiction of the Court under article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked on the ground that there has been an interference with the course of justice or that the dignity of the Institution has been lowered. We, accordingly, dismiss the petition.