Amarinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Question 1

Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha
Year of Decision
Bench Strength

Answer 1

2010
5 Judges
KGB for court

Question 2

Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha

Facts

Answer 2

• Legality of expulsion of Amarinder Singh from the Punjab Vidhan Sabha (13th term) in relation to alleged criminal misconduct during his tenure as CM for the 12th term.
• Misconduct related to illegal exemption given for land that was to be acquired for the Amritsar Urban Improvement Trust.
• The Vidhan Sabha constituted a Special Committee to investigate into the allegations. On the basis of Committee’s Report, Amarinder Singh was expelled by the Housa in an exercise of its legislative privilege.
• The notification of expulsion also required the Director, Vigilance Department to register an FIR, investigate and submit a report to the House.

Question 3

Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha

Why was a 5-Judge bencch Constituted?

Answer 3

• First challenged were in the HC by way of Art. 226. HC refused to grant interim relief of stay of report.
• SLP against the HC interim order. TP filed and allowed. Matter placed before a 3-Judge Bench which refused to allow him to participate, but seat would not fall vacant.
• 5 Judge Bench constituted in view of substantial question of law concerning the interpreation of Art. 194(3)

Question 4

Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha

Petitioner’s contentions

Answer 4

• There was no breach of privilige of the House. The alleged misconduct pertained to acts of the Executive and had no nexus with the functiong of the House.
• The Punjab Vidhan Sabha in its 13th term could not exercise its privileges in respect of acts done in the 12th terms.
• In exercise of legislative privilige, the domain of courts could not be taken over, and a finding of guilt against a member cannot be passed.

Question 5

Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha

Respondent’s contentions

Answer 5

• Legislature has broad powers to take punitive action for breach of its privileges which includes the power to punish for its own contempt.
• respondents had sought to supress efforts to inquire into alleged misconduct and had thereby breached privilege.

Question 6

Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha

Issues framed

Answer 6

• Whether alleged misconduct warranted the exercise of legislative privileges under Art. 194(3)?
• Whether the Punjab Vidan Sabha could take up as a matter as a breach of privilege an incident that had occured during its previous term?
• Whether the acts of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha violated norms that should be respected in relation to sub judice matters??

Question 7

Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha

Findings on Question 1 – Whether exercise of privilege was warranted?

Answer 7

• Power t =o expel members of the House was upheld in Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha - cash for questions.
• Since powers, priviliges and immunities have not been codified by way of statute, each House would continue to enjoy those that were available to the House of Commons as on 26-1-1950.
• The purpose of legislative privilege is to safeguard the integrity of the legislative functions against obstructions caused by both members and non-members.
• The sum of fundamental rights of the House and of its Members as against the preogative of the Crown, the authority of the ordinary courts of law and the special rights of the House of Lords. (Erkine May – privileges of the House of Commons)
• The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. These are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due exercise of parliament’s powers. (May + UP Assembly case)
• State of Karnataka v. Union of India – powers under Art. 194(3) are those “necessary for the conduct of the business of the House”. Similar observations in Sabharwal J.s opinion in Raja Ram Pal.
• Exercise of privilege is not an end in itself. Privilege is supposed to be exercised in order to esure that legislative functions can be exercised effectively.
• The Indian law follows the British precedents on legislative privileges only to the extent permitted by our constitutional scheme. In India, the legislatures do not have a wider power of self-composition in a manner akin to the British House of Commons. All privileges claimed by the House of Commons cannot automatically be claimed by the Indian legislatures. - Raja Ram Pal Case
• The improper conduct of the members in Raja Ram Pal case had a direct connection with their legislative functions. That is not the case with Amarinder Singh.
• The Punjab Vidhan Sabha commited a substative jurisdictional error by exercising powers under Art. 194(3) to inquire in to Amarinder Sing’s actions which were taken in his executive capacity.
• The conduct could not be viewed as obstructing the ordinary functions of the House.

Question 8

Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha What is the scope of judicial review over the exercise of legislative privilege? Raja Ram Pal

Answer 8

• Expediency and Necessity of exercise of privilege by the legislater outside judicial review.
  Rebuttable presumption in favour of proper exercise of privilege.
• Review permissible in case of jurisdictional error.
• Review permissible in case of allegation of FR violation. Duty to review where Arts. 20 and 21 violation alleged.
• Manner of enforcement can be reviewed subject to restrictions under Arts/. 122 and 212. Mere irregularity in procedure cannot be reviewed.
• Truth or correctness or adequacy of the material will not be gone into.

Question 9

Amarinder Singh v. Punjab

Finding on Question 2 – Power of Vidhan Sabha to punsih for act committed in previous term.

Answer 9

• Prorogation means the end of a session (not the House). Dissolution means the end of a House (not just of a Session).
• Dissolution is irrevocable.
• Ordinarily, all legislative business does not survive the dissolution of the House. All business pending before the House or any of its Committees lapses on dissolution.

 ## Gujarat Assembly Case
## Purushottam Namboodiri v. State of Kerala: Whether a Bill that was sent to the President for Assent can be sent back for reconsideration by a Successor Assembly? Held no.  All business pending on the date of the dissolution of the Assembly must lapse.
### Sub-committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India – all business lapses.

• Only exception is “doctrine f laps” wherein the succesor House can choose to take up a pending motution or any order of business after the reconstitution of House.
• Exception will not apply here. No pending motion at time of dissolution of 12th term.
• However, not to be taken as a general proposition. Sometimees, acts done in a previous term may obstruct proceedings in the present term, and this could giver rise to contempt regardless of disoolution.

Question 10

Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Finding on Question 3 – Encroachment in to judicial power

Answer 10

• Clear rules in place to prohibit discussion on sub-judice issues.
• Madhu Limaye – contrary statements of Minister of External Affairs and Home Affairs
• Don’t perver the course of justice. But at the same time do not unduly constrain scope of discussion.
• substantially identical. Postpone.
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain.
• Here encroachment both into judicial and executive domains – Therfore jurisdictional error.