Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. While arguing that there is a violation of Constitutional rights, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the sweep of Article 21 of the Constitution has got developed vastly as it was understood from early 50s and 60s and as on date, it has changed to the extent that the rights guaranteed under Article 21 are not restricted only to life and liberty but also to other facets of law. In this connection, he has placed strong reliance in the judgment reported in (2003) 8 SCC 361 in the case of State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani & Others (L.K. Advani's case) wherein it has been held that right to reputation is a facet of right to life and is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and if that right to reputation is inroaded without providing an opportunity, certainly, the protection under Article 21 will come to the rescue and therefore, it is a classic example for observation of principles of natural justice also; whereas, in the case on hand, the petitioner was not given any opportunity nor a letter, notice or order was served on him and no explanation was called for from him and consequently, the petitioner has been deprived of discharging his duties as a Member of Legislative Assembly.

38. With regard to the reliance placed on the side of the petitioner on the judgment reported in (2003) 8 SCC 361 in L.K. Advani's case, the learned Advocate General has contended that such a plea of loss of reputation was not at all taken in the affidavit but the same was argued. In this connection, it is his further contention that the said case cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand inasmuch as it was governed by Commission of Inquiry Act in which Section 8B provides for issuance of a notice and they are statutory in nature and the facts are different and therefore, the case of Legislature exercising its power and jurisdiction with regard to protection and preservation of its privileges stands in a different footing and pedestal and the Speaker and Legislature, being constitutional authorities, cannot be equated to the Commission of Inquiry or any other Executive authority or even to legislative exercise of Legislature and therefore, the anology and the ratio laid down in that case is not applicable to the case on hand.