Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji And Ors. vs Punit Goala on 1 August, 1951

Sri Surendra Mohanty vs Sri Nabakrishna Choudhury And Ors. on 26 February, 1958

The next case relied on behalf of the opposite party was a Calcutta case in Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji v. Punit Goala, 55 Cal WN 745: AIR 1951 Cal 176 (Z3), whera Harries C. J., held that Clause (2) of Article 194 protects absolutely and completely a Member in respect of any speech made by him in the Legislative Assembly or in any Committee of the Legislature and that the Member's words spoken within the four walls of the Assembly are absolutely privileged and no proceedings, either civil or criminal, can be taken in respect of them Then again, the decision in Jatish Chandra Ghose v. Harisadhan Mukherjee, 60 Cal WN 971: ( (S) AIR 1956 Cal 433) (Z4), also supports the contention of the opposite party that the rights of a Member of a Legislature are well-defined and that under Article 194(2) of the Constitution the immunity from liability to prosecution extends to what is said within the walls of the Legislature and to publications of reports, papers etc., made by or under the authority of the House of Legislature. This contention of the opposite-party is reinforced by a reference to certain extracts from May's Parliamentary Practice to which the learned Judge referred in his judgment.
Orissa High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961

The petition of complaint charged the appellant with an offence under s. 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the second and third accused, who have been cited as respondents 2 and 3 in this Court, under s. 501 of the Indian Penal Code. After several adjournments, the petitioner raised, by way of preliminary objection to the-.criminal prosecution, the question of his absolute privilege and immunity from prosecution under the provision of the Constitution. The learned Magistrate by his order dated October II,, 1955, overruled the objection and held that the privilege claimed by the accused was not an unqualified one. He relied on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee v. Punit Goala (1) in support of his conclusion that the first accused before him, now appellant, was not entitled to the privilege and immunity claimed by him. Thereafter, the appellant moved the High Court under Art. 228 of the Constitution for having the case withdrawn to the (1) (1951) 55 C.W.N. 745.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Sri Komati Reddy Venkat Reddy And ... vs The State Of Telangana, Law And ... on 17 April, 2018

In Suresh Chandra Banerji supra, a member made a speech in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. A newspaper published a report of the proceedings of the House including the speech. The complainant filed a complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate against the News Paper, alleging said speech contained matter highly defamatory to him and the News Paper by publishing the speech had defamed him. The Calcutta High Court ruled that the member who had made the speech in the House could not be prosecuted for uttering the words complained of. But as the reports of the said speech in the News Paper were not published by or under the authority of the State Assembly, Article 194(3) had no application whatsoever.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 151 - Cited by 0 - B S Rao - Full Document

Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghose vs Harisadhan Mukherjee And Ors. on 11 April, 1956

21. Cognate contentions were negatived by a Bench decision of this Court in the case of --'Suresh Chandra Banerjee v. Punit Goala' . That was an application under Article 228 of the Constitution for transfer of certain proceedings under Section 500, Penal Code to enable this Court to decide the constitutional point said to be involved in the case. The prosecution related to publication in the 'Loka Sevak' of a speech in the Legislative Assembly by Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee, a member of that Assembly. Harris, C. J. presiding over the Bench pointed out that Clause (2) of Article 194 did not protect publication unless it w.as authorised by the State Legislature and protection was given to only one class of reports which according to the ordinary rules of construction must be taken to imply that no other class of reports was protected. Ex-pressio unius exclusio alterius.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1