Art.3 and Art.122 and 212 of Indian Constitution - A.P. Bifurcation Bill is properly drafted or not or, for that matter, whether the procedure adopted by the concerned Ministry in introducing the bill is lawful or not- Business of the Houses - the role of Court may come much later, if the situation so warrants, only on established judicial principles and not otherwise, namely, whether the decision making process is in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Taking note of the prayer of the petitioner, we hold that this action of the petitioner is absolutely premature. = G.V. Rao... Petitioner The Union Government of India rep. by its Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi and two others..Respondents = 2014 (Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10887
Art.3 and Art.122 and 212 of Indian Constitution - A.P. Bifurcation Bill is properly drafted or not or, for that matter, whether the procedure adopted by the concerned Ministry in introducing the bill is lawful or not- Business of the Houses - the role of Court may come much later, if the situation so warrants, only on established judicial principles and not otherwise, namely, whether the decision making process is in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Taking note of the prayer of the petitioner, we hold that this action of the
petitioner is absolutely premature. =
for declaration that Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013 which Union Government of India placed before
President of India and in turn referred to the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature
cannot be construed as Bill, which is in violation of Provisions of Article 3 of
Constitution of India and is also in violation of Rules of Procedure and Conduct
of Business in Rajya Sabha and in Lok Sabha. In order to get relief, the
petitioner stated Bill prepared by Central Government and referred to the State
Legislature is not prepared as per requirement of Article 3 of Constitution of
India and relevant Rules. =
Sri S.R. Ashok and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, have
submitted and expressed their valued opinions as Amicus Curiae that this writ
petition is absolutely premature.
"Article 122. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament.-
(1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in
question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by
or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business,
or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of
any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers."
"Article 212. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the
Legislature.-
(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State
shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of
procedure.
(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom
powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the
conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be
subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of
those powers."
may come much later, if the situation so warrants, only on established judicial
principles and not otherwise, namely, whether the decision making process is in
accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution of India.
Taking note of the prayer of the petitioner, we hold that this action of the
petitioner is absolutely premature. On that ground, we close the writ petition.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
2014 (Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10887
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.18 OF 2014
03-02-2014
G.V. Rao... Petitioner
The Union Government of India rep. by its Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi and two
others..Respondents
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Party in person
Amicus Curiae : Sri S.R. Ashok
Amicus Curiae : Sri D. Prakash Reddy
Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud
Counsel for 3rd respondent : G.P. for General
Administration Department
?CASES REFERRED:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.18 OF 2014
ORDER: (per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This application has been taken out asking for declaration that Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013 which Union Government of India placed before
President of India and in turn referred to the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature
cannot be construed as Bill, which is in violation of Provisions of Article 3 of
Constitution of India and is also in violation of Rules of Procedure and Conduct
of Business in Rajya Sabha and in Lok Sabha. In order to get relief, the
petitioner stated Bill prepared by Central Government and referred to the State
Legislature is not prepared as per requirement of Article 3 of Constitution of
India and relevant Rules.
2. Sri S.R. Ashok and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, have
submitted and expressed their valued opinions as Amicus Curiae that this writ
petition is absolutely premature. Sri S.R. Ashok says that a prayer for mere
declaratory relief cannot be entertained unless a consequential relief is asked
for. Sri D. Prakash Reddy says that the approach of the petitioner is to
examine the legality and validity of the proposed bill of bifurcation. He
inviting our attention to Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution of India,
submits that this aspect is within the exclusive domain of both the Houses of
Parliament, and the State Legislature and the method and procedure regarding
presentation of the bifurcation bill and, for that matter, preparation of the
bill cannot be called in question before Court of law. He contends that
whatever is agitated in this application to achieve above relief, Centre and
State Legislatures are exclusive authorities, not the Court, to decide the
issue.
3. We therefore set out the aforesaid Articles for ready reference.
"Article 122. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament.-
(1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in
question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by
or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business,
or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of
any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers."
"Article 212. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the
Legislature.- (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State
shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of
procedure.
(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom
powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the
conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be
subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of
those powers."
The language of the aforesaid Articles is clear to support what Sri D. Prakash
Reddy says. Function in Article 3 is exclusively legislative one. It is
regulated by its own procedure, no Court can interfere unless clear violation of
provision of Constitution is established, as Courts' function cannot be called
into question by the legislature because it is governed by its own legally
established procedure.
4. We therefore think that the issue raised by the petitioner will
certainly be taken care of by the appropriate Legislature. Whether the bill is
properly drafted or not or, for that matter, whether the procedure adopted by
the concerned Ministry in introducing the bill is lawful or not, can be examined
by Legislatures in the floor of the House. Obviously when such a bill is
introduced, any Member of Parliament or of the Assembly will scrutinise and
point out illegality or irregularity and then decision will be taken by them.
5. We have taken note of the contention of the petitioner who appears to
be well sensitised to the working system of constitutional democracy. His
concern is only to see that if bifurcation is made, it must be done in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 3 of the Constitution of
India. Appreciating his anxiety, we think that this is not the stage for
scrutiny by the Court. On careful examination, we think that the role of Court
may come much later, if the situation so warrants, only on established judicial
principles and not otherwise, namely, whether the decision making process is in
accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution of India.
Taking note of the prayer of the petitioner, we hold that this action of the
petitioner is absolutely premature. On that ground, we close the writ petition.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.
6. This Court records its appreciation of the service rendered by Sri S.R.
Ashok and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, as Amicus Curiae.
______________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_____________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
03-02-2014
petitioner is absolutely premature. =
for declaration that Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013 which Union Government of India placed before
President of India and in turn referred to the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature
cannot be construed as Bill, which is in violation of Provisions of Article 3 of
Constitution of India and is also in violation of Rules of Procedure and Conduct
of Business in Rajya Sabha and in Lok Sabha. In order to get relief, the
petitioner stated Bill prepared by Central Government and referred to the State
Legislature is not prepared as per requirement of Article 3 of Constitution of
India and relevant Rules. =
Sri S.R. Ashok and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, have
submitted and expressed their valued opinions as Amicus Curiae that this writ
petition is absolutely premature.
"Article 122. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament.-
(1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in
question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by
or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business,
or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of
any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers."
"Article 212. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the
Legislature.-
(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State
shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of
procedure.
(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom
powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the
conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be
subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of
those powers."
Whether the bill is
properly drafted or not or, for that matter, whether the procedure adopted by
the concerned Ministry in introducing the bill is lawful or not, can be examined
by Legislatures in the floor of the House. Obviously when such a bill is
introduced, any Member of Parliament or of the Assembly will scrutinise and
point out illegality or irregularity and then decision will be taken by them.
On careful examination, we think that the role of Courtproperly drafted or not or, for that matter, whether the procedure adopted by
the concerned Ministry in introducing the bill is lawful or not, can be examined
by Legislatures in the floor of the House. Obviously when such a bill is
introduced, any Member of Parliament or of the Assembly will scrutinise and
point out illegality or irregularity and then decision will be taken by them.
may come much later, if the situation so warrants, only on established judicial
principles and not otherwise, namely, whether the decision making process is in
accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution of India.
Taking note of the prayer of the petitioner, we hold that this action of the
petitioner is absolutely premature. On that ground, we close the writ petition.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
2014 (Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10887
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.18 OF 2014
03-02-2014
G.V. Rao... Petitioner
The Union Government of India rep. by its Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi and two
others..Respondents
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Party in person
Amicus Curiae : Sri S.R. Ashok
Amicus Curiae : Sri D. Prakash Reddy
Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud
Counsel for 3rd respondent : G.P. for General
Administration Department
?CASES REFERRED:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.18 OF 2014
ORDER: (per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This application has been taken out asking for declaration that Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013 which Union Government of India placed before
President of India and in turn referred to the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature
cannot be construed as Bill, which is in violation of Provisions of Article 3 of
Constitution of India and is also in violation of Rules of Procedure and Conduct
of Business in Rajya Sabha and in Lok Sabha. In order to get relief, the
petitioner stated Bill prepared by Central Government and referred to the State
Legislature is not prepared as per requirement of Article 3 of Constitution of
India and relevant Rules.
2. Sri S.R. Ashok and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, have
submitted and expressed their valued opinions as Amicus Curiae that this writ
petition is absolutely premature. Sri S.R. Ashok says that a prayer for mere
declaratory relief cannot be entertained unless a consequential relief is asked
for. Sri D. Prakash Reddy says that the approach of the petitioner is to
examine the legality and validity of the proposed bill of bifurcation. He
inviting our attention to Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution of India,
submits that this aspect is within the exclusive domain of both the Houses of
Parliament, and the State Legislature and the method and procedure regarding
presentation of the bifurcation bill and, for that matter, preparation of the
bill cannot be called in question before Court of law. He contends that
whatever is agitated in this application to achieve above relief, Centre and
State Legislatures are exclusive authorities, not the Court, to decide the
issue.
3. We therefore set out the aforesaid Articles for ready reference.
"Article 122. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament.-
(1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in
question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by
or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business,
or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of
any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers."
"Article 212. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the
Legislature.- (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State
shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of
procedure.
(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom
powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the
conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be
subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of
those powers."
The language of the aforesaid Articles is clear to support what Sri D. Prakash
Reddy says. Function in Article 3 is exclusively legislative one. It is
regulated by its own procedure, no Court can interfere unless clear violation of
provision of Constitution is established, as Courts' function cannot be called
into question by the legislature because it is governed by its own legally
established procedure.
4. We therefore think that the issue raised by the petitioner will
certainly be taken care of by the appropriate Legislature. Whether the bill is
properly drafted or not or, for that matter, whether the procedure adopted by
the concerned Ministry in introducing the bill is lawful or not, can be examined
by Legislatures in the floor of the House. Obviously when such a bill is
introduced, any Member of Parliament or of the Assembly will scrutinise and
point out illegality or irregularity and then decision will be taken by them.
5. We have taken note of the contention of the petitioner who appears to
be well sensitised to the working system of constitutional democracy. His
concern is only to see that if bifurcation is made, it must be done in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 3 of the Constitution of
India. Appreciating his anxiety, we think that this is not the stage for
scrutiny by the Court. On careful examination, we think that the role of Court
may come much later, if the situation so warrants, only on established judicial
principles and not otherwise, namely, whether the decision making process is in
accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution of India.
Taking note of the prayer of the petitioner, we hold that this action of the
petitioner is absolutely premature. On that ground, we close the writ petition.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.
6. This Court records its appreciation of the service rendered by Sri S.R.
Ashok and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, as Amicus Curiae.
______________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_____________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
03-02-2014
Comments
Post a Comment