Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is urged that these are the only two conditions governing a resolution for the removal of a Chairman and that Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business (to be referred to hereafter as the Rules) having prescribed a further condition that leave of the House should be asked for and that that leave should be available only if at least 20 members rise in support of the same, being inconsistent with Article 183, is ultra vires the Constitution.

7. It was contended that Article 194(3) of the Constitution prescribes the powers, privileges and immunities of a House of the Legislature of a State and its members as being, unless they ara defined by the Legislature itself by law, to be the same as were enjoyed by the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and its members at the commencement of the Constitution. One of the powers and privileges of a member of the House of Commons, it was urged, is to move any resolution in the House including a resolution for the removal of the Speaker or Chairman and to speak for and in support of the same and that it is this power and privilege of the petitioner, which was denied by Rule 143, which is ultra vires the Constitution even on that ac count.

24. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that it is one of the privileges of a member of the House of Commons to move) a resolution including a resolution for the removal of the Speaker, and to speak in support thereof, and that this privilege being guaranteed for the members of the State Legislatures under Article 194(3), it cannot be curtailed by Rule 143.

25. It was, on the other hand, contended that Article 194(3) itself contemplates that the privileges may be defined by the Legislature by law, and it was, consequently, urged that the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Council having been framed by the Council, it should be deemed to have curtailed this alleged privilege --if privilege it can be called at all -- to the extent mentioned in Rule 143. We do not, however, think the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business framed by the Council can be said to have been "defined by the Legislature by law.'' The term ''Legislature'' has been denned under Article 168 as consisting of the Governor and to the extent the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, both the Houses of Legislature, namely, the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. The three combined would constitute "Legislature" and not either House of the same. Even the term "Law" will have to be understood in the sense in which it has been used in Article 246. It is the Legislature of a State which has power to make laws in respect of any of the matters in list II in the seventh schedule, referred to in the Constitution as the State List. A law, in order that it may be deemed to have been passed by the Legislature, should be passed in the form and manner in which such laws are passed (see Articles 196 and 201) and the adopting of the rule-by the Council for the procedure and conduct of business inside the House cannot, therefore, be said to be a law within the meaning of that expression in Article 194(3).

ther in framing Rule 143 the Legislative Council ignored constitutional restraints or violated any fundamental rights. In our opinion it did not, and this decision of the Supreme Court of the United States would not, therefore, apply to the facts of the instant case.

43. Reference was made to Articles 61, 66, go, 94, 179 and 124 of the Constitution and an attempt, was made to compare Article 183 with them. Article 61 provides for the impeachment of the President and Sub-clause (a) of Clause (2) of that article provides that the notice for a resolution for the impeachment of the President shall be in writing and signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of members of the House in which the resolution is to be moved. Proviso (b) to Article 67 provides for the removal of the Vice-President, Article 90(c) for the removal of the Deputy Chairman of the Council of State, Article 94(c) for the removal of the Speaker of the House of the People, Article 179(c) for the removal of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly and Article 124(4) for the removal of the. Judge of the Supreme Court. Article 183(c) prqvides, as has already been mentioned earlier, for the removal of the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of a State Legislative Council. It was pointed out that where the Constitution desired that the resolution which is moved for the removal of a person from his office should, have, as a condition precedent to the resolution being moved in the House, the support of a certain number of members of that House, provision was made in the Constitution itself, as in Article 61(2)(a). As no such provision has been made in any other article referred to above, it was urged that the intention was that there should be no such restriction on the moving of a resolution and that therefore, Rule 143 was beyond the rule-making powers of the Legislative Council.

51. A resolution for' the removal of the Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly was brought before the House on 19th March, 1959. The Speaker for whose removal the resolution was intended, left the chair even before the question relating to the leave of the House was taken up. But he did so not because he thought that he was required to vacate the chair when that question was before the House, but because he thought he should, do so, in good grace. He specifically referred to the provisions of the Constitution in that respect, and said that according to the Constitution he was required to vacate the chair only when the resolution itself was under consideration, but he thought it would be proper for him not to occupy the chair even when the question relating to the leave of the House was before it Even the proceedings of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly do not, therefore, indicate that Article 185 was interpreted by it or the Speaker in the manner in which the petitioner wants it to be interpreted.