Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.33 seconds)People'S Union Of Civil Liberties ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 March, 2003
(ii) People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union of India
(2003) 4 SCC 399 para 94 whereof details the duties and
responsibilities of a Member of Parliament.
Pandit M. S. M. Sharma vs Shri Sri Krishna Sinha And Others on 12 December, 1958
(iii) Pandit M.S.M. Sharma Vs. Sh. Sri Krishna Sinha AIR 1959
SC 395 in paras 24 & 25 whereof it was laid down that the
freedom of speech under Article 194(1) cannot be cut down in
any way by any law contemplated by Article 19(2).
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.
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"
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.