Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)

Suresh Kalmadi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 30 August, 2011

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner the first legal question which arises for consideration is the power of Raj Kumar Arora 2 2014.02.03 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3814-2014 (O&M) this Court in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to grant permission to the petitioner to attend 5th session of Legislative Assembly on the ground that he has got a right of speech inside the House and on the ground that he enjoys exclusive privilege as member of the State Legislation to meet the constitutional obligation. The provisions of Article 190 and 194 of the Constitution of India are pari materia with Articles 101 & 105 of the Constitution of India under Chapter V which deals with the members of the Parliament, their disqualification and the privileges etc. The provisions of Articles 101 & 105 of the Constitution of India fall under Chapter VI (i) of the Constitution of India dealing with the members of the State executive, State Legislation and the disqualification and privileges etc., of the members of the State Legislation. Provisions of Articles 101 & 105 of the Constitution of India were considered before a Division Bench in Suresh Kalmadi Vs. Union of India and others, 2012 (1) RCR (Crl.), 543, where a member of the Parliament facing serious charges of corruption sought permission to attend parliamentary proceedings. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court taking into consideration the fundamental rights, powers, privileges and immunities arrived at a conclusion that in the exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, it will be inappropriate to exercise the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant permission to an accused of a serious offence to attend the parliamentary session solely on the foundation that he has Raj Kumar Arora 3 2014.02.03 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3814-2014 (O&M) got a right of speech inside the Parliament or on the foundation that he enjoys exclusive privilege in the Parliament as a member on the substratum that he has to participate in the proceedings to meet the constitutional obligation. The inherent power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be involved where the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 2 - D Misra - Full Document

M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors on 4 November, 1997

This question was decided in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 (SC) 128. It was held in the said case that if a Court finds that the petitioner could not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot certainly treat the said petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. So far as the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner permitting the members of the Legislative Assembly or Parliament to attend the session in custody, are concerned, the said power cannot be exercised under the garb of authority under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 3106 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1   2 Next