Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.51 seconds)
Suresh Kalmadi (In Judicial Custody) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 August, 2011 cites

P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State(Cbi/Spe) on 17 April, 1998

(i) P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State (CBI/SPE) (1998) 4 SCC 626 in para 47 whereof it was held that Parliamentary democracy is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution; in paras 162 & 165, that in a democratic form of Government, it is the Member of Parliament who represents the people of his Constituency in the highest law making bodies at the Centre and performs a public duty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 121 - Cited by 206 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

K. Anandan Nambiar And Another vs Chief Secretary, Government Of Madras ... on 27 October, 1965

22. Coming back to the Constitution Bench judgment in K. Ananda Nambiar (supra), it was held that the Constitution does not impose any W.P.(C) No.5367/2011 Page 14 of 21 obligation on individual Members of Parliament - they are neither bound to attend the Session nor under an obligation to be present in the House when the President addresses it; subject-matter of the various Articles of the Constitution is not the individual rights of the Members of Parliament, but they refer to the right of the President to issue a summon for the ensuing Session of Parliament or to address the House. It was further held that though the basis of democratic form of Government is that Members of Legislatures must be given absolute freedom of expression when matters brought before the Legislature are debated but that is only when they attend the Session of the House. The argument that it is the Constitutional and fundamental right of a Parliamentarian to attend the Session of the House was negatived. It was held that if the order of detention validly prevents a Parliamentarian from attending a Session of Parliament, no occasion arises for exercise of the right of freedom of speech and no complaint can be made that the said right has been invalidly invaded. Similarly, the argument that so long as the Member of Parliament has not incurred any disqualification, he is entitled to exercise his rights as such Member was also negatived and it W.P.(C) No.5367/2011 Page 15 of 21 was held that a person who is detained, himself foregoes his right to participate in the business of the Legislature. It was yet further held that so far as a valid order of detention is concerned, a Member of Parliament can claim no special status higher than that of an ordinary citizen and is as much liable to be arrested and detained under it as any other citizen.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 29 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr on 7 November, 1975

24. The counsel for the respondent No.3 CBI has contended that the present also cannot be said to be a case of non application of mind by the Court in whose judicial custody the petitioner is inasmuch as the charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken. He further contends W.P.(C) No.5367/2011 Page 16 of 21 that even in Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Raj Narain 1975 (Supp) SCC 1 the same principles as in K. Ananda Nambiar were reiterated and the principle laid down by Commons in a conference with the Lords in 1641 that "privilege of Parliament is granted in regard to the service of the Commonwealth and, is not to be used to the danger of the Commonwealth"
Supreme Court of India Cites 168 - Cited by 520 - Full Document

Vineet Narain & Others vs Union Of India & Another on 18 December, 1997

28. Allowing the petitioner to attend the Parliament, even if in judicial custody, would certainly provide the petitioner respite from imprisonment. I see no reason to carve out an exception in favour of the petitioner when his fellow prisoners are not provided such respite. Sophocles said "Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law". The Parliamentary privileges which the Members of Parliament enjoy are intended to facilitate their work as representatives of people and should not be mistaken as indicative of rank or creating a separate class different from the other citizens. The Apex Court in Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 held that the law does not classify offenders differently W.P.(C) No.5367/2011 Page 20 of 21 for treatment thereunder, including investigation of offences and prosecution for offences, according to their status in life - every person accused of committing the same offence is to be dealt with in the same manner in accordance with law, which is equal in its application to everyone.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 474 - Full Document

Daljit Singh Rajput vs Chandigarh Administration And Another on 11 December, 1998

20. The senior counsels for the petitioner did not address on the query posed to them as aforesaid on 29th July, 2011, i.e. as to how the work of a W.P.(C) No.5367/2011 Page 12 of 21 Parliamentarian can be placed on a higher pedestal. A Member of Parliament cannot tell the citizens who have elected him that the sweat of his brow is dearer or that the work performed by him is more important. The argument, of a Parliamentarian being entitled to continue attending Parliament notwithstanding his arrest and when the citizen who has elected him, inspite of holding position, be that of a Director in a public limited Company or of an office bearer in a Society or a Club or having the duty towards spouse, parents and children, being not so entitled, runs contrary to the principle of equality enshrined in our Constitution. The duty of a father to a growing child or of a son to an ailing parent cannot be held to be any less important. If the arguments as raised were to be accepted, it will be difficult for the Courts to refuse the same concession to others under detention. They will also claim that they, while remaining under custody should be allowed to continue with their vocation to prevent their dependent family members from starving or suffering. I find, a practicing Advocate under detention to have similarly claimed that he should, while in custody, be allowed to conduct the cases of clients who had earlier engaged him; he W.P.(C) No.5367/2011 Page 13 of 21 had also contended that his clients will go unrepresented and will file consumer complaints against him. The said claim was negatived by the Division Bench in Daljit Singh Rajput Vs. Chandigarh Administration MANU/PH/0047/1998. It was held that the arrest and judicial custody being in accordance with the established criminal law of the country, he could not exercise the rights of personal liberty, so long as deprived thereof in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The same holds good for the petitioner herein.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - B Rai - Full Document
1