Delhi High Court
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union Of India And Anr on 1 September, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra
Bench: Chief Justice, Sanjiv Khanna
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of order: 1st September, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 6355/2011
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondent
Through Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with
Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Mr. Ritesh
Kumar, Mr. K.P.S. Kohli and
Mr. Mithu Jain Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes.
DIPAK MISRA, CJ:
The petitioner, a practising advocate, has invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking for appropriate direction to the respondents to provide equal
opportunity to the petitioner and other citizens to file their
representations and objections and participate in the discussion
pertaining to the Lokpal Bill in the same manner and time as that has
been allowed to the five member NGO and further to declare the entire
process of the drafting committee and actions related to as it
unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
W.P.(C) 6355/2011 Page 1 of 11
India. That apart, it has been prayed to declare the respondents‟ action
dated 4th August, 2011 as ultra vires the rules of the House and to
further declare the action of the respondents in introducing any of the
Lokpal Bills, including government bill and private bills, as
unconstitutional being violative of Article 117 of the Constitution and
to direct the respondents to disclose all true facts and details about the
subject matter upon the Lokpal Bill i.e. annual extra cost to the country
and other ancillary aspects.
2. It is submitted by Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, who has appeared
in person, that the Lokpal Bill, as is discernible, is basically a money
bill and, therefore, the presidential consent is necessary prior to the
introduction of such a bill in the Parliament. It is his further submission
that the procedure adopted by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
and Ministry of Law and Justice is absolutely contrary to the
provisions of the Constitution and the rules framed under Article 118
of the Constitution, which pertain to bill originating in the House. It is
urged by him that when a Bill postulates expenditure from the
Consolidated Fund, a specified particular procedure has to be followed
and every citizen has a right to know and the same cannot be
smothered or scuttled. The petitioner would contend that the
respondents are under obligation to furnish all requisite information
and unless the same is done, the whole exercise shall fall foul of
W.P.(C) 6355/2011 Page 2 of 11
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. To bolster the said submission,
he has commended us to the decision of the Constitution Bench in
Ramdas Athawale Vs. Union of India and Others (2010) 4 SCC 1.
Mr. Sharma has further canvassed that others also should have the
opportunity to submit bills to the government for introducing before
the Parliament.
3. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General,
resisting the submissions put forth by Mr. Sharma, has contended that
whether the Bill is a money bill or not is to be determined by the
Speaker of the Lok Sabha under Article 110 of the Constitution. He
would further submit that at the bill or pre Bill stage, the power of
judicial review is not to be invoked in view of the Division Bench‟s
decision dated 2nd May, 2011 of this Court in W.P.(C) 2671/2011 titled
Hemant Baburao Patil Vs. Union of India and Others.
4. To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar, it is appropriate
to refer to Article 107 of the Constitution which relates to provisions as
to introduction and passing of bills. It reads as follows:-
"107. Provisions as to introduction and passing
of Bills.--(1) Subject to the provisions of Articles
109 and 117 with respect to Money Bills and other
financial Bills, a Bill may originate in either
House of Parliament.
(2) Subject to the provisions of Article 108 and
109, a Bill shall not be deemed to have been
passed by the Houses of Parliament unless it has
been agreed to by both Houses, either without
W.P.(C) 6355/2011 Page 3 of 11
amendment or with such amendments only as are
agreed to by both Houses.
(3) A Bill pending in Parliament shall not lapse by
reason of the prorogation of the Houses.
(4) A Bill pending in the Council of States which
has not been passed by the House of the People
shall not lapse on a dissolution of the House of the
People.
(5) A Bill which is pending in the House of the
People, or which having been passed by the House
of the People is pending in the Council of States,
shall, subject to the provisions of Article 108,
lapse on a dissolution of the House of the People."
5. Article 109 provides a special procedure in respect of Money
Bills. Article 110 defines, which Bill shall be a „Money Bill‟. For the
sake of completeness, we think it appropriate to reproduce Article 110.
It reads as under:-
"110. Definition of "Money Bills.--(1) For the
purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed to be
a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing
with all or any of the following matters, namely--
(a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or
regulation of any tax;
(b) the regulation of the borrowing of money or the
giving of any guarantee by the Government of India,
or the amendment of the law with respect to any
financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken
by the Government of India;
(c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the
Contingency Fund of India, the payment of moneys
into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such
Fund;
(d) the appropriation of moneys out of the
Consolidated Fund of India;
(e) the declaring of any expenditure to be
expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of
W.P.(C) 6355/2011 Page 4 of 11
India or the increasing of the amount of any such
expenditure;
(f) the receipt of money on account of the
Consolidated Fund of India or the public account of
India or the custody or issue of such money or the
audit of the accounts of the Union or of a State; or
(g) any matter incidental to any of the matters
specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f).
(2) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by
reason only that it provides for the imposition of
fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand
or payment of fees for licences or fees for services
rendered, or by reason that it provides for the
imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or
regulation of any tax by any local authority or body
for local purposes.
(3) If any question arises whether a Bill is a Money
Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the House
of the People thereon shall be final.
(4) There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill
when it is transmitted to the Council of States under
Article 109, and when it is presented to the President
for assent under Article 111, the certificate of the
Speaker of the House of the People signed by him
that it is a Money Bill."
6. We have referred to the said Article as the petitioner has urged
with vehemence that as the Bills now being circulated are Money Bills,
the parliamentary procedure as per the Rule has to be followed. Per
contra, Mr. Chandhiok would submit that in view of the language
employed in sub-article (3) of Article 110, the verdict of the Speaker
with regard to the status of the Bill is final.
7. In the case of Ramdas Athawale (supra), the controversy had
travelled to the Apex Court as the petitioner therein had filed a writ
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of
W.P.(C) 6355/2011 Page 5 of 11
the proceedings in the Lok Sabha commencing 29th January, 2004 on
the ground that the President had not addressed both Houses of the
Parliament as envisaged under Article 87 of the Constitution and,
therefore, an appropriate writ or direction should be issued declaring
that the session of the Lok Sabha called by the notice dated 20th
January, 2004 is the first session in the year 2004 and the proceedings
of the Lok Sabha pursuant to the notice dated 20th January, 2004 are
unconstitutional, illegal, null and void. Be it noted, in the said case, it
has been put forth that the "first session" means, the session which is
held first in point of time in a given year and accordingly, the session
which commenced on 29th January, 2004 was the first session of the
House of the year 2004. Their Lordships adverted to the facts in
paragraph 3, which is as follows:-
"3. There is no dispute before us that the fourteenth
session of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha commenced on
2-12-2003 and was adjourned sine die on 23-12-
2003. Thereafter on 20-1-2004, the Secretary
General of the Lok Sabha, by way of a notice
informed all the Members of the Thirteenth Lok
Sabha, duly stating that under Rule 15 of the Rules
of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha,
the Speaker has directed that the Lok Sabha which
was adjourned sine die on 23-12-2003 will resume
its sittings on 29-1-2004."
8. The Constitution Bench posed a question in paragraph 28, which
is as follows:-
"28. The question that arises for consideration in this
W.P.(C) 6355/2011 Page 6 of 11
writ petition is whether the decision of the Speaker
directing resumption of sitting of the Lok Sabha which
was adjourned sine die on 23-12-2003 is susceptible to
judicial review in a proceeding under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India?"
9. Thereafter, their Lordships referred to Article 122 of the
Constitution and proceeded to express thus:-
"30. A plain reading of Article 122 makes it
abundantly clear that the validity of any proceeding in
Parliament shall not be called in question on the
ground of any irregularity of procedure. The prayer in
the writ petition is to declare the proceedings in the
Lok Sabha pursuant to the Notice dated 20-1-2004
issued under the directions of the Speaker as
unconstitutional. The petitioner is essentially raising a
dispute as to the regularity and legality of the
proceedings in the House of the People. The dispute
raised essentially centres around the question as to
whether the Speaker's direction to resume sittings of
the Lok Sabha which was adjourned sine die on 23-12-
2003 is proper?
31. The Speaker is the guardian of the privileges of the
House and its spokesman and representative upon all
occasions. He is the interpreter of its rules and
procedure, and is invested with the power to control
and regulate the course of debate and to maintain order.
The powers to regulate the procedure and conduct of
business of the House of the People vests in the
Speaker of the House. By virtue of the powers vested
in him, the Speaker, in purported exercise of his power
under Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct
of Business in Lok Sabha got issued Notice dated 20-1-
2004 through the Secretary General of the Lok Sabha
directing resumption of sittings of the Lok Sabha
which was adjourned sine die on 23-12-2003. Whether
the resumed sitting on 29-1-2004 was to be treated as
the second part of the fourteenth session as directed by
the Speaker is essentially a matter relating purely to the
procedure of Parliament. The validity of the
proceedings and business transacted in the House after
W.P.(C) 6355/2011 Page 7 of 11
resumption of its sittings cannot be tested and gone
into by this Court in a proceeding under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India."
10. In the said decision, reference was made to the decision in
Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures, Re v., AIR
1965 SC 745 and eventually, their Lordships opined thus:-
"38. Under Article 122(2), the decision of the Speaker
in whom powers are vested to regulate the procedure
and the conduct of business is final and binding on
every Member of the House. The validity of the
Speaker's decision adjourning the House sine die on
23-12-2003 and latter direction to resume its sittings
cannot be inquired into on the ground of any
irregularity of procedure. The business transacted and
the validity of proceedings after the resumption of
sittings of the House pursuant to the directions of the
Speaker cannot be inquired into by the courts.
39. No decision of the Speaker can be challenged by a
Member of the House complaining of mere irregularity
in procedure in the conduct of the business. Such
decisions are not subject to the jurisdiction of any court
and they are immune from challenge as understood and
explained in Keshav Singh case and further explained
in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain wherein it was
observed that: (Indira Nehru case, SCC p. 46, para 70)
"70. ... the House is not subject to the
control of the courts in the administration of
the internal proceedings of the House."
40. It is a right of each House of Parliament to be the
sole judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings.
The courts cannot go into the lawfulness of the
proceedings of the Houses of Parliament. The
Constitution aims at maintaining a fine balance
between the legislature, executive and judiciary. The
object of the constitutional scheme is to ensure that
each of the constitutional organs function within their
W.P.(C) 6355/2011 Page 8 of 11
respective assigned sphere. Precisely, that is the
constitutional philosophy inbuilt into Article 122 of the
Constitution of India."
11. After so stating, their Lordships referred to another decision of
the Constitution Bench in M.S.M. Sharma Vs. Dr. Shree Krishna
Sinha AIR 1960 SC 1186 wherein it has been held that the validity of
proceedings inside the legislature of the State cannot be called in
question on the allegation that the procedure laid down by law had not
been strictly followed.
12. After so stating, in paragraphs 42, 43, 46 and 47, it has been held
thus:-
"42. In the present case, there is no complaint of
infringement of any guaranteed fundamental rights and
therefore it may not be necessary to dilate on the question
as to the parameters and extent of judicial review that
may be available in case of infringement of any
guaranteed fundamental rights of a Member of the House.
43. One more aspect of the matter. The petitioner in
this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has
challenged the validity of proceedings in the Lok Sabha
commencing from 29-1-2004 on the grounds stated
hereinabove, which we have dealt with in the preceding
paragraphs. The petition has become infructuous, since
the Lok Sabha was dissolved and thereafter two elections
have been held. The issue raised in the petition is purely a
hypothetical question. There is no existing lis between the
parties. It is settled practice that this Court does not
decide matters which are only of academic interest on the
facts of a particular case.
xxxxxx
46. It is equally well settled that Article 32 of the
Constitution guarantees the right to a constitutional
remedy and relates only to the enforcement of the right
W.P.(C) 6355/2011 Page 9 of 11
conferred by Part III of the Constitution and unless a
question of enforcement of a fundamental right arises,
Article 32 does not apply. It is well settled that no petition
under Article 32 is maintainable, unless it is shown that
the petitioner has some fundamental right. In Northern
Corpn. v. Union of India this Court has made a pertinent
observation that when a person complains and claims that
there is a violation of law, it does not automatically
involve breach of fundamental right for the enforcement
of which alone Article 32 is attracted.
47. We have carefully scanned through the averments
and allegations made in the writ petition and found that
there is not even a whisper of any infringement of any
fundamental right guaranteed by Part III of the
Constitution. We reiterate the principle that whenever a
person complains and claims that there is a violation of
any provision of law or a constitutional provision, it does
not automatically involve breach of fundamental right for
the enforcement of which alone Article 32 of the
Constitution is attracted. It is not possible to accept that
an allegation of breach of law or a constitutional
provision is an action in breach of fundamental right. The
writ petition deserves dismissal only on this ground."
13. On a perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is clear that when a
fundamental right, as enshrined in Chapter III of the Constitution, is
not affected, a writ petition under Article 32 is not to be entertained.
14. In the case at hand, as we understand, the grievance of the
petitioner is with regard to the manner and procedure of the
introduction of the bill. This Court in the case of Hemant Baburao
Patil (supra), wherein the challenge was made with regard to the
composition of the drafting committee, had held thus:-
"6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it
is manifest that members of the Committee do not
W.P.(C) 6355/2011 Page 10 of 11
hold public office and, hence, there cannot be any
eligibility criteria. Therefore, the concept of quo
warranto is not applicable. A drafting committee
has been constituted which pertains to a pre-
enactment stage. We have our grave doubt
whether the same can be scrutinized while
exercising the power of judicial review. The
Constitution casts an obligation on the part of the
Court while exercising power of judicial review to
test the legislation in the constitutional backdrop,
but not at a stage when the drafting of a Bill is in
process. It is a resolution passed by the Ministry of
Law and Justice for drafting of a Bill. It can be
treated as an internal matter of the Executive and
exclusively in the domain of Executive. The
suitability of the persons, we are disposed to think,
cannot be a matter of judicial review, more so in a
matter of the present nature."
15. In our considered opinion, the present writ petition has been
preferred without any legal foundation and the petitioner has made an
adroit endeavour to build a castle in Spain. Hence, we conclude and
hold that the controversy cannot be made a subject matter of assail
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petition,
being bereft of substratum, stands dismissed without any order as to
costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2011 NA W.P.(C) 6355/2011 Page 11 of 11