# AMARINDER SINGH v. SPECIAL COMMITIEE, PUNJAB VIDHAN ,SABHA & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2010] 4 S.C.R. 1105
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2010-04-26
- **Case number:** SPECIAL COMMITIEE, PUNJAB VIDHAN ,SABHA & OTHERS ·.I (Civil Appeal No. 6053 of 2008
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/amarinder-singh-v-special-commitiee-punjab-vidhan-sabha-others-26795
- **Pages:** 74

## Headnote

[2010] 4 S.C.R. 1105
AMARINDER SINGH
v.
SPECIAL COMMITIEE, PUNJAB VIDHAN ,SABHA &
OTHERS
·.I
(Civil Appeal No. 6053 of 2008)
1
APRIL 26, 2010
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, R.V. RAVEENDRAN, P.
A
1
I
B
SATHASIVAM, J.M. PANCHAL, AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
•
Constitution of India, 1950:
c
I
I
Article 194(3) - Powers and privileges of House of
Legislature - Expulsion of Me.mber of Vidhan Sabha for
alleged improper exemption of land from acquisition scheme
when he was Chief Minister during previous term of the House
0
- HELD: The allegedly improper exemption of land was an
executive act and it did not distort, obstruct or threaten the
integrity of the legislative proceedings in any manner - The
Vidhan Sabha exceeded its powers by expelling the Member
on the ground of a breach of privilege when there existed none
E
- Resolution passed by Punjab Vidhan Sabha on 10.9.2008
directing expulsion of appellant for the remainder of 13th Term
of Vidhan Sabha is declared invalid - Judicial review.
Article 105(3) and 194(3) rlw Articles 122(1) and 212(1)
- Expulsion of Member of Vidhan Sabha - Judicial review of F
- HELD: Though Articles 122(1) and 212(1) make it clear that
Courts cannot inquire into matters relating to irregularities in
observance of procedure before Legislature, but Courts can
examine whether proceedings conducted under Article 105(3)
or Article 194(3) are 'tainted on account of substantive or G
gross illegality or unconstitutionality' - In the instant case, the
a/legations of wrong doing pertain to executive act given effect
to in previous term of the House - Besides, there was no
conceivable obstruction caused to the conduct of routine
1105
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 4 S.C.R.
A legislative business - Therefore, tne act of recommending the
expulsion cannot be justified as a proper exercise of 'powers,
privileges and immunities' conferred by Article 194(3) and is
constitutionally invalid.
8
Article 194(3) - House of Legislature - Exercise of
powers and privileges relating to acts done in previous term
of the House -
Vidhan Sabha recommending expulsion of
its member for alleged improper exemption of land from
acquis,"tion scheme, when he was Chief Minister during the
C previous term of the House - HELD: Ordinarily, legislative
business does not survive the 'dissolution' of the House - In
the instant case, the alleged improper exemption of land took
place during the 12th Vidhan Sabha, and at the time of
reconstitution of the 13th Vidhan Sabha, there was no pending
motion, report or any other order of business which had a
D connection with the alleged improper exemption of land - It
was, therefore, not proper for the Assembly to inquire into
actions that took place during its previous term - Doctrine of
lapse.
E
Legislature:
House of Legislature - Inquiring into sub-judice matter
- HELD: Ordinarily, legislative proceedings should not touch
on sub-judice matters -
In the instant case, improper
c
exemption of land had already been questioned and was
pending before the High Court - Therefore, the Vidhan Sabha
should have refrained from dealing with the same subject
matter - Rules of Business and Conduct of the Punjab
Vidhan Sabha - rr. 39(1), 50, 93(2)(iv) and 150(a) - Rules of
Business and Conduct of the Lok Sabha - rr. 173, 188 and
G 352
Constitutionalism:
Constitution of India - Separation of powers - House of
H Legislature - Resolution containing directions as to how
AMARINDER SINGH v. SPL. COMMITTEE, PUNJAB 1107
VIDHAN SABHA
investigation into the alleged wrong doings of a Member of A
the fjouse, along with some others should be conducted as
also certain directions tq Vigilance Department in that regard
- HELD: These functions are within the domain of Executive,
a'1d the Legislature would not assume the responsil;ility of
monitoring an ongoing investigation - Further, a legislative
B
body is not entru,s~ed with the power of adjudicating a case
once an appropfiate forum is in existence under the
constitutional scμeme - There was a

## Text

_Characters 0–39,976 of 138,679. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39976 for what follows._

[2010] 4 S.C.R. 1105
AMARINDER SINGH
v.
SPECIAL COMMITIEE, PUNJAB VIDHAN ,SABHA &
OTHERS
·.I
(Civil Appeal No. 6053 of 2008)
1
APRIL 26, 2010
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, R.V. RAVEENDRAN, P.
A
1
I
B
SATHASIVAM, J.M. PANCHAL, AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
•
Constitution of India, 1950:
c
I
I
Article 194(3) - Powers and privileges of House of
Legislature - Expulsion of Me.mber of Vidhan Sabha for
alleged improper exemption of land from acquisition scheme
when he was Chief Minister during previous term of the House
0
- HELD: The allegedly improper exemption of land was an
executive act and it did not distort, obstruct or threaten the
integrity of the legislative proceedings in any manner - The
Vidhan Sabha exceeded its powers by expelling the Member
on the ground of a breach of privilege when there existed none
E
- Resolution passed by Punjab Vidhan Sabha on 10.9.2008
directing expulsion of appellant for the remainder of 13th Term
of Vidhan Sabha is declared invalid - Judicial review.
Article 105(3) and 194(3) rlw Articles 122(1) and 212(1)
- Expulsion of Member of Vidhan Sabha - Judicial review of F
- HELD: Though Articles 122(1) and 212(1) make it clear that
Courts cannot inquire into matters relating to irregularities in
observance of procedure before Legislature, but Courts can
examine whether proceedings conducted under Article 105(3)
or Article 194(3) are 'tainted on account of substantive or G
gross illegality or unconstitutionality' - In the instant case, the
a/legations of wrong doing pertain to executive act given effect
to in previous term of the House - Besides, there was no
conceivable obstruction caused to the conduct of routine
1105
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 4 S.C.R.
A legislative business - Therefore, tne act of recommending the
expulsion cannot be justified as a proper exercise of 'powers,
privileges and immunities' conferred by Article 194(3) and is
constitutionally invalid.
8
Article 194(3) - House of Legislature - Exercise of
powers and privileges relating to acts done in previous term
of the House -
Vidhan Sabha recommending expulsion of
its member for alleged improper exemption of land from
acquis,"tion scheme, when he was Chief Minister during the
C previous term of the House - HELD: Ordinarily, legislative
business does not survive the 'dissolution' of the House - In
the instant case, the alleged improper exemption of land took
place during the 12th Vidhan Sabha, and at the time of
reconstitution of the 13th Vidhan Sabha, there was no pending
motion, report or any other order of business which had a
D connection with the alleged improper exemption of land - It
was, therefore, not proper for the Assembly to inquire into
actions that took place during its previous term - Doctrine of
lapse.
E
Legislature:
House of Legislature - Inquiring into sub-judice matter
- HELD: Ordinarily, legislative proceedings should not touch
on sub-judice matters -
In the instant case, improper
c
exemption of land had already been questioned and was
pending before the High Court - Therefore, the Vidhan Sabha
should have refrained from dealing with the same subject
matter - Rules of Business and Conduct of the Punjab
Vidhan Sabha - rr. 39(1), 50, 93(2)(iv) and 150(a) - Rules of
Business and Conduct of the Lok Sabha - rr. 173, 188 and
G 352
Constitutionalism:
Constitution of India - Separation of powers - House of
H Legislature - Resolution containing directions as to how
AMARINDER SINGH v. SPL. COMMITTEE, PUNJAB 1107
VIDHAN SABHA
investigation into the alleged wrong doings of a Member of A
the fjouse, along with some others should be conducted as
also certain directions tq Vigilance Department in that regard
- HELD: These functions are within the domain of Executive,
a'1d the Legislature would not assume the responsil;ility of
monitoring an ongoing investigation - Further, a legislative
B
body is not entru,s~ed with the power of adjudicating a case
once an appropfiate forum is in existence under the
constitutional scμeme - There was an obvious jurisdictional
error on the part of the Vidhan Sabha -
Doctrines -
E$eparation of/powers.
c
The appellant, who was the Chief Minister of the State
dur.ing~~ 12th term of the Vidhan Sabha, was elected
as a M mber of the House for its 13th term, which was
cons ti uted on 1.3.2007, and became the leader of the
opposition. A privilege motion was moved in the 13th
Vidhan Sabha in respect of grant of exemption of 32.10
jiCres of land from the acquislflon scheme and tampering
with the proceedings dated 1 :3.2006,-0f the 12th Vidhan
·Sabha in that regard. The,matter /was referred to the
Privilege Committee' of the House, and its report was
tabled before the Hduse on 18.12.2007. The matter was
further referred to the Special Committee to examine the
role of the appellant in the matter. The report of the
Special Committee, which was presented to the House
on 5.9.2008, recorded the findings, inter alia, that the
appellant ,and three others were involved in corruption,
conspiracy to 1cause wrongful loss to public exchequer
and abuse of public office in relation to exemption of land
from the acquisition scheme. The House, accepting the
report of the Special Committee, passed the resolution
dated 10.9.2008 recommending expulsion of the appellant
for the remaining term of the 13th Vidhan Sabha and a
direction to the Secretary of the Vidhan Sabha to
approaGh the Election Commission of India to have the
D
E
F
G
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2010] 4 S.C.R.
A seat of the appellant declared as vacant. It was further
recommended that since the House did not possess any
investigation facilities, a custodial interrogation of the
persons involved should be directed and the Director,
Vigilance Department be instructed to file an FIR and,
B after investigation, to submit its report to the Speaker of
the House. A notification was issued to that effect the
same day, i.e. on 10.9.2008. The appellant filed a writ
petition before the High Court, which did not grant any
stay of operation of the resolution except protection to
c the appellant from custodial interrogation. Aggrieved, the
appellant filed the appeal. A transfer petition was also
filed which was allowed and the writ petition before the
High Court was transferred to the Supreme Court. Two
writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were
0 filed by the other persons involved in the exemption
matter along with the appellant. Since the subject matter
touched on substantial question of law requiring
interpretation of Article 194(3) of the Constitution, the
appeal and the connected matters were, ultimately,
referred to the Constitution Bench.
E
The questions for consideration before the Court
were: (i) "Whether the alleged misconduct on .part of the
appellant and the petitioners warranted the exercise of
legislative privileges under Article 194(3) of the
F Constitution?"; (ii) "Whether it was proper for the Punjab
Vidhan Sabha to take up, as a matter of breach of
privilege, an incident that occurred during its previous
term?"; and (iii) "Whether the impugned acts of the
Punjab Vidhan Sabha violated the norms that should be
G respected in relation to sub judice matters?"
H
Disposing of the appeal and the connected matters,
the Court
HELD: 1.1. The exercis_e of legislative privileges is not
AMARINDER SINGH v. SPL. COMMITTEE, PUNJAB 1109
VIDHAN SABHA
an end in itself .. They are supposed to be exercised in
A
order to ensure that legislative functions can be
I
exercised effectively, without undue obstructions. The
important consideration for scrutinising the exercise of
. leriislative privileges is whether the same was necessary
to safeguard the integrity of legislative functions. [Para
B
24] [1136-D, E, F]
1.2. A breach of privilege by a member of the
legislature can only be established when his act is directly
connected with or bears a proximity to his duties, role or C
functions as a legislator. This test of proximity should be
the rule of thumb, while of course accounting for
exceptional circumstances where a person who is both
a legislator and a holder of executive office may commit
a breach of privilege. It is the considered view of the Court
that such a breach has not occurred in the instant case.
D
[Para 35] [1157-B]
Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) 1
SCR 317 = (2007) 3 sec 184, relied on.
Re Special Reference 1 of 1964, 1965 SCR 413 =AIR
1965 SC 745; State of Karnataka v. Union of India, 1978 (2)
SCR 1 = (1977) 4 SCC 608, referred to.
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia, (1993)
100 DLR 4th 212, referred to.
Parliame[ltary Procedure- Law Privileges, Practice &
Precedents by Subhash C. Kashyap Vol. 2 (New Delhi:
E
F
Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2000) p.1555;
Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 16th edn. (London:
G
Bytterworths, 1957); Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edn.
(Reissue Vol. 34, at p. 553; 76th Report of the Senate
Committee of Privileges (Australia); Hatsell's Collection of
Cases of Privileges of Parliament (1776); Sir Erskine May's
H
1110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 4 S.C.R.
A Parliamentary Practice (1950); Advanced Law Lexicon,by
Ramanatha Aiyar 2nd edn. Vol. 3 (New Delhi: Wadhwa &
Co. Nagpur, 1997); Report of the Select Committee on
Parliamentary Privilege (1967) (UK), referred to.
8
1.3. Even considering the parliamentary practice in
India, it is quite apparent that the expulsion of members
should only be sustained if their actions have caused
obstructions to legislative functions or are likely to cause
the same.Legislatures have power to expel their
C members, subject to the judicially prescribed guidelines.
[para 36] [1157 -D]
D
Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) 1
SCR 317 = (2007) 3 SCC 184; and P. V. Narasimha Rao v.
State. 1998 (2) SCR 870 = (1998) 4 SCC 626, referred to.
Practice and Procedure of Parliament,by Kaul and
Shakdher, 5th edn. (New Delhi: Metropolitan Book Co.
Pvt. Ltd., 2001) pp. 191-193; Parliamentary Procedure- Law
Privileges, Practice & Precedents by Subhash C. Kashyap
E Vol. 2 (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
2000), p.1555, referred to.
1.4. The various grounds for disqualification of
members of legislative assemblies (MLAs) have been
enumerated in Articles 190 and 191 of the Constitution.
F For most circumstances, there is elaborate machinery in
place to
decide questions pertaining
to the
disqualification of members and the vacancy of seats. If
a sitting member of a legislature is found guilty of
committing a statutory offence, then disqualification can
G be a consequence as per the scheme contemplated in
the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is for the
purpose of tackling unforeseen and novel impediments
to legislative functioning that the 'powers, privileges and
immunities' contemplated by Article 194(3) of the
H
AMARINDER SINGH v. SPL. COMMITTEE, PUNJAB 1111
VIDHAN SABHA
Constitution have not been codified. But, the
A
expressions such as 'lowering the dignity of the house',
'conduct unbecoming of a member of the House' and
'unfitness of a member' are openly-worded and abstract
grounds which, if recognised, will trigger the
indiscriminate and disproportionate use of legislative
B
privileges by incumbent majorities to target their political
opponents as well as dissidents. [Para 33,38) [1161-B;
1151-A; 1160-H; 1161-A; 1161-C]
1.5. In Raja Ram Pal's case, the majority decision of C
this Court did recognise that the legislature's power to
punish for its contempt could be exercised to expel
legislators for grounds other than those prescribed in the
Constitution, but it was not the intention of this Court to
prescribe an untrammeled power. By laying down a clear
set of guidelines for judicial review over the exercise of D
parliamentary privileges, this Court had made its
intentions quite clear. Accordingly, the power of a
legislative chamber to punish for its own contempt
should broadly ccjncide with the legislature's interest in
protecting the integrity of its functions. (Para 38) (1161E
D, E]
Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) 1
SCR 317 = (2007) 3 sec 184, relied on.
F
1.6. In the instant case, the allegedly improper
exemption of land was an executive act attributable to the
appellant and it did not distort, obstruct or threaten the
integrity of legislative proceedings in any manner.
Therefore, the exercise of legislative privileges under
Article 194(3) of the Constitution was not proper. The
G
considered view of the Court is that the Punjab Vidhan
Sabha exceeded its powers by expelling the appellant on
the ground of a breach of privilege when there existed
none. (para 55(i)] (1171-E-G]
H
1112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2010] 4 S.C.R.
A
2.1. In view of the principles of judicial review in
relation to exercise of parliamentary privileges as culled
out in Raja Ram Pal's case, this Court is empowered to
scrutinize the exercise of legislative privileges which
admittedly include the power of a legislative chamber to
8 punish for contempt of itself. The specific guidelines in
the saic case advocate due deference to the actions of
the legislature in the ordinary course of events. Articles
122(1) and 212(1) of the Constitution make it amply clear
that Courts canr;10t inquire into matters related to
c irregularities in o'bservance of procedures before the
legislature. However, the Courts can examine whether
proceedings conducted under Article 105(3) or 194(3) are
'tainted on account of substantive or gross illegality or
unconstitutionality'. [para 29-30] [1146-C-E-G)
D
2.2. This Court recognizes that the threshold for
exercising judicial review in a case such as the instant
one is indeed very high and it must begin with a
presumption that the legislatures' actions were valid. The
facts in the instant case do not merely touch on a
E procedural irregularity. The relevant fact here is not only
that the allegations of wrongdoing pertain to an executive
act, but the fact is also that there is no conceivable
obstruction caused to the conduct of routine legislative
business.Sufficient material has been produced to
F demonstrate that it was not necessary for the Punjab
Vidhan Sabha to have exercised its powers under Article
194(3) to recommend and then notify the expulsion of the
appellant. It cannot be said that the alleged misconduct
on part of the appellant had the effect of obstructing the
G ordinary legislative functions of the Vidhan Sabha.
Therefore, the act of recommending the appellant's
expulsion through the impugned resolution cannot be
justified as a proper exercise of 'powers, privileges and
immunities' conferred by Article 194(3). [para 29-30) [1146H F-H; A, B, CJ
AMARINDER SINGH v. SPL. COMMITTEE, PUNJAB 1113
VIDHAN SABHA
3. Ordinarily, legislative business does not survive
A
the 'dissolution' of the House. The exception to this norm
is covered by the 'doctrine of lapse' wherein the
successor House can choose to take up a pending
motion or any order of business after the re-constitution
of the House. However, this exception is not applicable
B
in the facts of the instant case. The allegedly improper
exemption of a plot of land took place during the 12th
term of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha which was
subsequently dissolved; whereas the constitution of the
Special Committee, to inquire into the same, took place c
during the 13th term. Th'erefore, it was not proper for the
13th Punjab Vidhan Sabha to claim a breach of privileges
on account of the alleged misconduct which actually
took place during its 12th term; especially when at the
time of the reconstitution of the 13th Punjab Vidhan
0
Sabha, t.here was no pending motion, report or any other
order of business which had a connection with the
allegedly improper exemption of land. However, this view
should not be mistaken for a general proposition since
it may be that in some circumstances the acts that have
taken place during the previous terms of a Legislature
could actually have the effect of distorting, obstructing
or diluting the integrity of legislative business in the
succeeding term. Evidently, no such consequence or
tendency has been demonstrated in the instant case.
[para 39-40,44,45 and 55(ii)] (1167-A; 1168-B; 1177-H;
1178-A]
Gujarat Assembly Election case (2002) 3 Suppl.
SCR 366 = (2002) 8 SCC 237; Purushothaman Nambudiri
E
F
v. State of Kera/a, 1962 Suppl. SCR 753 = AIR 1962 SC
G
694; Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of
India (1991) 2 Suppl. SCR 1 = (1991) 4 SCC 699, referred
to.
Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edn. (West Group) p. 506;
H
1114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 4 S.C.R.
A Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd edn.,
Vol. 20-1 ; and Practice and Procedure of Parliament,by
Kaul and Shakdher, 5th edn. (New Delhi: Metropolitan
Book Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2001) pp. 191-193, referred to.
B
4.1. It is a settled principle that ordinarily the content
of legislafive proceedings should not touch on sub judice
matters. The ratiqnale for this norm is that legislative
debate or scrutiny over matters pending for adjudication
could unduly prejudice the rights' of the litigants. In the
C case at hand, the allegedly improper exemption of land
from the Amritsar Improvement Scheme had already been
questioned before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
and the subject matter of dispute was pending before it.
This fact was well known at the time of the constitution
of the Special Committee by the Vidhan Sabha on
D 18.12.2007. Therefore, the Punjab Vidhan Sabha should
h::tve refrained from dealing with the same subject matter
and ought not to have constituted a committee to inquire
into it. Rules 39(1 ), 50, 93(2)(iv) and 150(d) of the Rules
of Business and Conduct of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha
E are quite categorical in laying down a prohibition on the
taking up of any matter which is pending adjudication
before a court of law. Analogues provisions are Rules
173,188 and 352 of the Rules of Business and Conduct
of the Lok Sabha. [para 46,49, 51 and 55] [1168-D; 1170F F; 1172-H; A, B; 1178-D 1178-D]
Parliamentary Procedure- Law Privileges,· Practice &
rrecedents Vol. 2 by Subhash C. Kashyap, (New Delhi:
Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2000) ; and Griffith
G and Ryle, Parliament, Functions and Procedure (2003),
Chapter 6 Para 6-075, referred to.
4.2. The doctrine of separation of powers is an
inseparable part of the evolution of parliamentary
democracy itself. Our institutions of governance have
H been intentionally founded on the principle of separation
AMARINDER SINGH v. SPL. COMMITTEE, PUNJAB 1115
VIDHAN SABHA
of powers and the Constitution does not give unfettered
A
power to any organ. All the three principal organs are
expected to work in harmony and in consonance with the
spirit and essence of the Constitution. The resolution
dated 10-9-2008 passed by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha
contains directions as to how the investigation into the
B
appellant's and petitioners' alleged wrongdoing should
be conducted. The resolution directs the filing of FIRs
and custodial interrogation in addition to directing the
Vigilance Department, to find out where the appellan~ and
the others have stored their 'ill gotten wealth' and further c
directs the Vigilance Department to report back to the
Speaker of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. These functions
are within the domain of the executive. It is up to the
investigating agencies themselves to decide how to
proceed with the investigation in a particular case. The
0
role of the legislature in this regard can at best be
recommendatory and the Speaker of the Legislature
would not assume the responsibility of monitoring an
ongoing investigation. [Para 52-53] [1173-C, E; 1175-E-G]
4.3. Further, a legislative body is not entrusted with
E
the power of adjudicating a case once an appropriate
forum is in existence under the constitutional scheme. A
determination of guilt or innocence by way of fact-finding
is a role properly reserved for the trial judge. The only
exception to this principle is when the impugned acts
F
have the effect of distorting, obstructing or threatening
the integrity of legislative proceedings or are likely to do
the same, thereby warranting the exercise of privileges.
There was an obvious jurisdictional error on part of the
Punjab Vidhan Sabha in the instant case. [para 52-53]
G
[1173-E; 1174-H; 1175-A]
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1976 SCR 347 =
(1975) Supp SCC 1, referred to.
Kilbourn v. Thompson 103 US 168 (1881 ), referred to.
H
1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 4 S.C.R.
A
5. It is declared that the resolution passed by the
Punjab Vidhan Sabha on 10-9-2008, directing expulsion
of the appellant for the remainder of the 13th term of the
Vidhan Sabha is constitutionally invalid. Therefore, the
appellant's membership in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha is
B directed to be restored. However, nothing in this
judgment should act as a hurdle against the investigation,
if any, into the alleged role of the appellant and the
petitioners in the improper exemption of land from the
Amritsar Improvement Scheme that was notified on 13C 1-2006. [para 56) [1178-F, G]
D
E
F
Case Law Reference:
(2007) 1 SCR 317
relied on
para 12
(1993) 100 DLR 4th 212 referred to
para 20
(1965) SCR 413
referred to
para 21
(1978) 2 SCR 1
referred to
para 22
(1998) 2 SCR 870
referred to
para 36
(2002) 3 Suppl. SCR 366 referred to
para 42
(1962) Suppl. SCR 753 referred to
para 43
(1991) 2 Suppl. SCR 1 referred to
para 43
1976 SCR 347
referred to
para 52
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6053 of 2008.
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.9.2007 of the High
G Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 16216
of 2008.
WITH
H T.C. (C) No. 1 of 2009, W.P. (C) Nos. 442 and 443 of 2008.
AMARINDER SINGH v. SPL. COMMITTEE, PUNJAB 1117
VIDHAN SABHA
Gopal Subramanium, ASG, K. Parasaran, Uday Umesh
A
Lalit, Ashok H. Desai, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Shyam Diwan K.
Parasaran, Uday Umesh Lalit, Jayshree Anand, AAG Atul
Nanda, Rameeza Hakeem, Abhijat, P. Medh, Law Associates
& Co. K.K. Mahalik, Nitu Kumai Sinha, Kuldip Singh, Gaurav
Agrawal, Ajay Pal, Aprajita Singh, Nikhil Jain, Aman Pal,
B
Sukhda Pritam, Ardendhu Mauli K. Prasad, Gorminder Singh,
Anuradha Biundra, Menka Guruswamy, Charu Sangwan,
. Paruthi K. Goswamy, Chaman Lal Premi, Jai Shree Anand,
Ajay Bansal, Aman Ahluwalia, Balaji Subramanian (for B.K.
Prasad) for the appearing parties.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI 1. The appellant was the
Chief Minister of the State of Punjab during the 12th term of
the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. The appellant was duly elected as
D
a member of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha for its 13th term.
2. The Punjab Vidhan Sabha on 10-9-2008 passed a
resolution which directed the expulsion of the appellant for the
remainder of the 13th term of the same Vidhan Sabha. This
E
resolution was passed after considering a report submitted by
a Special Committee of the Vidhan Sabha (Respondent No
1) on 3-9-2008 which recorded findings that the appellan• along
with some other persons (petitioners in the connected matters)
had engaged in criminal misconduct. The Special Committee
had itself been constituted on 18-12-2007 in pursuance of a
resolution passed by the Vidhan Sabha. It had been given the
task of inquiring into allegations of misconduct that related back
F
to the appellant's tenure as the Chief Minister of the State of
Punjab during the 12th term of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. More
specifically, it was alleged that the appellant was responsible
G
for the improper exemption of a vacant plot of land which was
licensed to a particular private party (measuring 32.10 acres)
from a pool of 187 acres of land that had been notified for
acquisition by the Amritsar Land Improvement Trust on 5-122003. The Amritsar Land Improvement Trust is a statutory body
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 4 S.C.R.
A which had notified the plan for acquisition in pursuance of a
developmental scheme, as contemplated under Section 36 of
the Punjab Land Improvement Act. 1922. Earlier, on 23-6-2003,
a private party (M/s. Veer Colonizers) had applied for a licence
under Section 5 of the Punjab Apartment and Property
B Regulation Act, 1995 to develop the above-mentioned plot of
32.1 O acres which was situated in the proximity of the AmritsarJalandhar road. At the time of the colohizer's application for a
development licence, the said plot was not covered by any
acquisition scheme, though it had been covered by two
c schemes in the past which had lapsed by then. After the
notification of the scheme, the colonizer approached the
concerned ~uthorities, seeking an exemption from the proposed
acquisition of land. Subsequently on 7-10-2005, the Amritsar
Land Improvement Trust granted a No-objection certificate,
0 thereby permitting the exemption of the said plot of 32.10 acres
from the scheme for acquisition. This decision to exempt the
said plot of 32.10 acres was notified by the State Government
on 13-01-2006 under Section 56 of the Punjab Town
Improvement Act. Since the appellant was serving as the Chief
E Minister of the State at the time, it was alleged that the decision
to exempt the plot was an executive act that could be attributed
to him.
3. However, some other private parties who owned plots
in the pool of land that had been notified for acquisition by the
F Amritsar Land Improvement Trust on 5-12-2003, raised
objections a~ainst the exemption referred to above. The gist
of their objections is that the State Government had unduly
favoured one private party by exempting the said plot of 32.10
acres from the scheme for acquisition. In fact the validity of the
G exemption was questioned in several cases instituted before
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, namely those of Major
General Sukhdip Randhawa (Retd.) & Ors. Vs. State of
Punjab (CWP No. 16923 of 2006), Mis. Daljit Singh Vs. State
of Punjab (CWP No. 20266 of 2006), Sudarshan Kaur Vs.
H State of Punjab (CWP No. 2929 of 2007) and Basant
AMARINDER SINGH v. SPL. COMMITIEE, PUNJAB 1119
VIDHAN SABHA [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
Colonisers & Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab (CWP No.
A
7838 of 2008). All of these cases were pending before the High
Court at the time of the hearings in the present case.
4. Following the elections held to re-constitute the Punjab
Vidhan Sabha in February 2007, there was a transition in
power in the -State. The 13th Vidhan Sabha was constituted on
1-3-2007. The appellant who had served as the Chief Minister
of the State during the 12th term of the Vidhan Sabha, became
B
the leader of the opposition in the 13th term: In pursuance of a
news report dated 22.3.2007, some members of the Legislative
Assembly moved a privilege motion in respect of allegafions
C
of tampering in the proceedings of the 12th Vidhan Sabha
(dated 1-3-2006). These allegations were in regard to a starred
question relating to the grant of exemption of 32.10 ac1es of
land. On 5-4-2007 the notice of motion was referred to the
Privileges Committee of the House by the Speaker. Thereafter,
D
questions were raised on the floor of the house which cast
aspersions on the appellant's past conduct. On 18-12-2007, the
report of the Privileges Committee was tabled before the
House. The incumbent Chief Minister brought a motion which
specifically questioned the appellant's role in the exemption of
E
the 32.10 acre plot from the acquisition scheme notified by the
Amritsar Improvement Trust. Following this motion, the Speaker
of the House approved the constitution of a Special Committee
to inquire into the alleged misconduct. The terms of reference
F
for the Special Committee required it to examine as to what
were the reasons for exempting the said plot measuring 32.10
acres of land. As part of this inquiry, the Special Committee
had to examine whether any rule/norms had been violated on
account of this exemption and whether it had caused monetary
losses to the State exchequer. The stated objective was to
G
identify those responsible for such losses.
5. The Special Committee submitted its report on 3-92008 which was presented to the House on 5-9-2008. The
report included findings that Captain Amarinder Singh (former
H
1120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 4 S.C.R.
A Chief Minister, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6053 of 2008),
Choudhary Jagjit Singh [former Local Bodies Minister,
petitioner in Writ Petition (Civ.) No. 443 of 2008], Late Sh.
Raghunath Sahai Puri [former Housing Minister, since
deceased] and Sh.· Jugal Kishore Sharma [former Chairman
B of Amritsar Land Improvement Trust, petitioner in Writ Petition
(Civ.) No. 442 of 2008) had been involved in 'corruption,
conspiracy to cause wrongful loss and abuse of public office'
in relation to the exemption of land from the above-mentioned
acquisition scheme. It must be noted that out of the four
C individuals named in the report, only Captain Amarinder Singh
was elected as a member of the 13th Punjab Vidhan Sabha.
After considering these findings, the Punjab Vidhan Sabha
passed the impugned resolution on 10-9-2008 which is
extracted below:
D
"After accepting the report submitted by the Special
E
F
G
H
Committee appointed by this House, this august House
recommends the following action:
***
***
***
(i) Captain Amarinder Singh is expelled for the remaining
term of the 13th Punjab Vidhan Sabha. The Secretary of
the Vidhan Sabha is instructed to approach the Election
Commission of India to have his seat declared as vacant.
(ii) The recommendations of the Privilege Committee have
been tabled in the House on 18.12.2007 and they be
forwarded to Chief Secretary, Punjab Government with the
undermentioned instructions:-
Because this House does not possess any facility
to investigate and find out where the accused have
stashed away the ill gotten wealth or how it has
been distributed, it is essential to have custodial
interrogation. Director Vigilance Department,
Punjab which deals with corruption cases and is an
AMARINDER SINGH v. SPL. COMMITIEE, PUNJAB 1121
VIDHAN SABHA [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
arm of the Punjab Government be instructed to file,
A
a FIR keeping in mind the various instructions of the
CrPC.
The vigilance department is to investigate and
submit its report to the Speaker of this House within
B
two months from today."
6. In pursuance of the said resolution, the secretariat of the
Punjab Vidhan Sabha issued a notification on 10-9-2008 which
declared that Captain Amarinder Singh had been expelled from
the membership of the 13th Vidhan Sabha for the remaining
C
term of the State Legislature, (that is 3.5 years). It was also
declared that his assembly constituency seat (76-Patiala Town)
was 'rendered vacant, thereby setting aside his election to the
same. Aggrieved by the findings of the report submitted by the
Special Committee on 3-9-2008, the appellant moved the High
D
Co,urt of Punjab and Haryana (C.W.P. 11548 of 2008).
Following the impugned resolution on 10-9-2008, the said
petition was withdrawn and C.W.P. 16216 of 2008 was
instituted before the High Court to challenge the Special
Committee's report as well as the impugned resolution dated
E
10.9.2008. On 15-9-2008, a division bench of the High Court
issued an order directing that the case be heard on merits on
1-12-2008. The High Court did not grant a stay on the operation
of the impugned resolution, but granted protection to Captain
• Amarinder Singh from custodial interrogation and directed
F
further listing on 1-12-2008. Dissatisfied with the High Court's
order, the appellant approached this court by way of a petition
eeeking special leave to appeal. The appellant contended that ,
the High Court ought to have stayed the report dated 3.9.2008 \
and the Resolution and Notification dated 10.9.2008. He
G
apprehended that a fresh election would be conducted in the
intervening period, thereby compromising his rights.
7. A division bench of this court directed notice on 26-9- ·
2008 and referred the case for hearing by a three judge bench.
On 3-10-2008, a three judge bench (B.N. Agarwal, G.S. Singhvi
H
1122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20101 4 s.r :~.
A ·and Aft3b Alam, JJ.] granted leave in the special leave petition
(C.A No. 6053/2008). It allowed Transfer Petition (C) No. 1087/
2008 for transfer of CWP No. 16216/2008 from the Punjab and
Haryana High Court (the transferred case is T.C. (C) No. 1 of
2009.) and directed the same to be heard with the Civil Appeal
B along w"h W.P. (C) No. 442/2008 and W.P. (C) No. 443/ 2008.
The three judge bench did not grant a stay on the operation of
the impugned resolution which had directed the expulsion of the
appellant from the Vidhan Sabha. However, relief was granted
to the extent that even though the appellant could not participate
c in the legislative proceedings, his seat would not fall vacant until
the adjudication of this case. A stay was also granted in respect
of the Vidhan Sabha's specific directions to the Punjab
Vigilance Department, but it was clarified that the appellant and
the petitioners could be investigated in accordance with law.
0 Subsequently, the three judge bench found that the subject
matter touched on substantial questions of law requiring the
interpretation of Article 194(3) of the Constitution. thereby
deeming 1t fit to refer these matters to a constitution bench by
way of an order dated 11-2-2009.
E OVERVIEW OF CONTENTIONS
8. The counsel appearing for the appellant and the
petitioners have prayed trat the impugned resolution as well
as the report submitted by the Special Committee be
F
invalidated in their entirety. Accordingly. the appellant has
sought r8stor::ition of his men~bershT for the remainder of the
13th tE:rr;i of trie "1injab V!·1~ an Sahha The main thrust of the
appellants contentions ::; thdt tne acts of constituting the
Special Conim1ttee on 18 1.:! -'''07. the submission of its
G report 0n 3-9-2008 and the i~pugned resolution passed by the
Assembly on 10 9-2008 r:annot be defended as a proper
exercise of legislative priv iege~ under Article 194 of the
Constitution. It was urged that t~e allegations of misconduct on
part of the appellant and the peH:oners were relatable to their
executive actions which in no way disrupted or affected the
H
AMARINDER SINGH v. SPL. COMMITTEE, PUNJAB 1123
VIDHAN SABHA [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, C.JI.]
legislative functions of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. It was
A
reasoned that legislative privileges are exercised to sate-;uarc.:
B
the integrity of legislative proceedings and the alleged .
misconduct did not threaten the same in any manner. Another
contention was whether it was proper for the 13th Vidhan
Sabha to exercise its privileges to inquire into acts that had
occurred during the 12th term of the Vidhan Sabha. It was also
pointed out that the alleged misconduct on the part of the
appellant and the petitioners had already been questioned
before the High Court of Punjab Haryana by private parties
whose lands had not been exempted from the Amritsar c
Improvement Scheme. Thus, it was argued that it was improper
for the legislature to act in respect of subject-matter which was
pending adjudication, thereby violating the norm of not
interfering in sub judice matters. It was further argued that even
though legislative privileges are exercised to ensure the dignity
0
and disr:ipline of the House, the same cannot encroach into the
judicial domain by recording a finding of guilt and
recommending punitive action in respect of the alleged
misconduct. To support this objection. it was urged that the
appellant and the petitioners had not been given a fair
opportunity to contest or meet the allegations against them and
hence the proceedings of the Special Committee were violative
E
of the principles of natural justice.
9. The respondents' case is that the Punjab Vidhan Sabha
had legitimately exercised its privileges to recommend punitive
F
action in the present case, since the alleged misconduct on part
of the appellant and the petitioners had brought disrepute to
the House as a whole. It was reasoned that even though the
power of expulsion for such misconduct has not been
enumerated in Articles 190 and 191 of the Constitution [which
G
prescribe the grounds for disqualification of MLAs] the
legislature had a broad power to take punitive action for the
breach of its privileges which includes the power to punish for
its own contempt. It was submitted that the appellant and the
petitioners had committed a breach of privilege as well as
H
1124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010) 4 S.C.R.
A contempt of the house since they had previously suppressed
efforts of the legislature to inquire into the alleged misconduct
in relation to the Amritsar Improvement Scheme. Since
legislative privileges have not been codified and are shaped
by precedents, the counsel for the respondents have cited
B some English precedents in support of their contention that
privileges can be exercised to punish ma/a fide acts which do
not directly obstruct the proceedings of the House, but impede
its dignity nevertheless.
10. In the course of the hearing on merits before this
C constitution bench, Shri K. Parasaran and Shri U.U. Lalit, Sr.
Advs. appeared on behalf of the appellant. Thereafter, Shri
Ashok Desai, Sr. Adv. appeared for the respondent whose
submissions were supplemented by Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad,
Sr. Adv., while Shri Gopal Subramanium, (Additional Solicitor
D General, now Solicitor General) represented the views of the
Union government.
E
F
G
11. In light of the facts of this case and the contentions
outlined above, the following questions arise for consideration:
I.
Whether the alleged misconduct on part of the
appellant and the petitioners warranted the exercise
of legislative privileges under Article 194(3) of the
Constitution?
II.
Whether it was proper for the Punjab Vidhan Sabha
to take up, as a matter of breach of privilege, an
incident that occurred during its previous term?
Ill.
Whether the impugned acts of the Punjab Vidhan
Sabha violated the norms that should be respected
in relation to sub Judice matters?
Re: Question I.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have
H submitted that it was proper for the Punjab Vidhan Sabha to
AMARINDER SINGH v. SPL. COMMITTIEE, PUNJAB 1125
VIDHAN SABHA [K.G BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
constitute the Special Committee and pass the impugned
resolution which recommended the expulsion of the appellant.
A
The core of their argument is that the misconduct on part of the
appellant had brought disrepute to the Vidhan Sabha and it was
justifiable to exercise legislative privileges for mitigating the
same. The· respondents have adopted a two-pronged line of
reasoning. Firstly, they have asserted that the alleged
misconduct on part of the appellant amounted to a breach of
privilege as well as contempt of the House. Secondly, they have
contended that since the 'powers, privileges and immunities'
conferred on State Legislatures by Article 194(3) of the
Constitution have not been codified, it would not be proper to
place limitations on their exercise. The implicit rationale is that
legislative assemblies should retain flexibility in the exercise of
their privileges and the power to punish for contempt, so that
they can tackle new and unforeseen impediments to their
0
reputation and functioning. The respondents' submissions have
dwelt at length with the idea that the legislature's power to
B
c
· punish for its own contempt cannot be trammeled since it is
different from the remedial objective of exercising privileges to
maintain the dignity and discipline of the house. The
respondents have extensively relied on the constitution bench
decision in Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha,
\2007) 3 SCC 184, where this Court had upheld the Lok
Sabha's power to expel its members in view of misconduct in
the nature of accepting bribes to ask specified questions on
the floor of the House. However, the majority opinions of this
Court had also clarified that the exercise of parliamentary
privileges in such cases was open to judicial scrutiny.
E
F
13.