ORDER
1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition is a registered political party; but, yet to be recognised. It is stated to have got itself registered with the Election Commission of India on 8-1-1998. It’s main aim, according to what is stated in the affidavit,
is to provide conflict free politics and problem free administration at all levels. It is stated that the party has come into existence with fifty points programme for the betterment of the people of India, irrespective of caste, creed and religion etc., and to achieve the “Indianisation of India”. Its General Secretary is stated to be a practising Advocate.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition duly sworn to by its General Secretary, concern is expressed about the criminalisation of politics and mafia gangs entering into politics. The affidavit in detail states as to how the political process has got degenerated. It is stated that the people with criminal background and who were actually feeing criminal charges are not only allowed to participate in the elections without any difficulty; but, got themselves elected to the Assemblies in the country, as well as the Parliament. Such elected representatives of the people have no respect and regard for the faith of the people.
3. The petitioner mainly expresses its concern about the unfortunate and unruly events that are taking place in various Legislative Assemblies in the country and in the Parliament. It is alleged that the elected representatives of the people are indulging themselves in accusing each other in filthy language and without even feeling shy to fight each other by breaking mikes, throwing chairs to beat the Honourable Members belonging to the rival political parties. No decency and decorum is left in any of the Legislative Assemblies in the country.
4. The petitioner in detail refers to what had happened on 16-3-1998 in Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly when the Governor was actually prevented from delivering his customary address/speech as required under Article 176 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, in detail, refers to what had transpired in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly where the mikes were used as missiles and as to how the Members were exchanging blows right in the Assembly hall causing injuries to various
Members of the House. The petitioner placed reliance upon a report detailed in India Today November 3, 1997, issue. The petitioner also refers to what had happened recently in Bihar Legislative Assembly. The petitioner also refers to various news items published in leading national dailies in support of the averments made in the affidavit. The petitioner had also referred to various “unruly, unparliamentary and violent behaviour in the sacred precinct of the chambers of the Legislature”. The petitioner expresses its anguish as to how the law-makers were indulging in the acts of law breaking, forgetting the high traditions and conventions of the House of which they are Members. The petitioner submits that the chosen representatives of the people belonging to almost all the political parties are uniformly behaving in a manner unbecoming of the Members of the Legislative Assemblies or the Parliament, as the case may be. It is submitted that the chosen representatives of the people have no such right or privilege to behave in unruly and violent manner in the Legislatures. The Constitution of India does not confer upon them any such privilege.
5. It is under those circumstances, the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in not taking necessary steps for controlling, curtailing and preventing the unruly, undemocratic, unparliamentary and violent behaviour of the elected representatives as unconstitutional and undemocratic. The petitioner also prays for issuance of consequential directions to the respondents herein, directing them to take all necessary steps in exercise of the power conferred upon them by the Constitution of India, including steps for disqualifying such members who indulge in unruly, violent and unparliamentary behaviour in the Legislatures and the Parliament.
6. The Court appreciates and understands the anguish and the concern shown by the petitioner as to how the chosen representatives of the people are undermining
the decency and dignity of the House of which they are elected as Members by the people directly. It may not be possible for this Court to express any definite opinion or record any finding about any of the incidents alleged to have taken place in various Legislative Assemblies and the Parliament. But, at the same time, the Court would not be wrong in taking judicial notice of some of the incidents as narrated by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, as to what transpired in various Legislative Assemblies in the country, including in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Proceedings of various Legislative Assemblies are directly telecasted and we have seen the manner in which the elected representatives have conducted their business in the House. The head-lines in the National dailies scream…”Governor forced to end speech abruptly; Pandemonium in Rajya Sabha; Bedlam in Lok Sabha; Uttar Pradesh Shame and Sham, political norms take a beating as splits, violence and subterfuge take over, a Member in Bihar Assembly slept resounding;
7. The instances referred to by the petitioner are noticed by the Court only for the purpose of disposing of the writ petition, but not with a view to record a finding as such, as it is not possible for this Court to record any finding on the basis of the material available on record; but the Court does not shut its eyes closed. It does not sit in sound proof ivory towers. The Court definitely shares the anxiety and the concern shown by the petitioner. In this regard, the Court does not find it difficult to agree with the submission that there is no such privilege conferred upon any Member of the Legislature to indulge in unruly behaviour in the House. The Constitution does not visualise law-makers indulging in lawlessness in the precincts of the House. The Constitution confers privilege upon the Members of the House to conduct their affairs freely and in democratic manner. The privileges are conferred upon the Members to enable them to discharge their constitutional obligations of enacting laws without any fear or pressure from outside the House.
8. It would be appropriate to extract as to what an elderly Statesman and recepient of Bharat Rama, Sri C. Subramaniam says,
“The spectacle that the “Legislature in action” presents nowadays is, as a rule, the least edifying. There is a lack of order, not to mention decorum in the way business is conducted. In fact, getting any kind of business conducted at all is proving amajor headache to the Presiding Officers. Proceedings are disrupted at the least provocation and missiles are hurled by the members at one another with abandon. These, mind you, are not limited to wordy missiles! Certainly, this was not the kind of behaviour expected of the legislators by our Constitution-makers. It would be wrong to tar everyone with the same brush. There are, no doubt well-disciplined members in any House; but they sit and watch helplessly when their less-disciplined brethren cross the boundary between orderly protest and sheer rowdyism. This cannot be allowed to go on unchecked. The Presiding Officers as well as political leaders have a responsibility to correct this malaise before things get entirely out of hand.”
“There has to be a collective recognition of the fact that the quality of performance of our legislative bodies is deteriorating alarmingly and unless checked before further damage takes place, the position can become quite irretrievable. Political parties, the executive as well as the Presiding Officers have to work in tandem to see that the needed improvements are brought about through well thought-out initiatives in a non-partisan and cooperative endeavour. There is no time lose.” (See The Hindu, dated 14-4-1998)
9. But what is that the Court is expected
to do in such matters. What relief could be granted to the petitioner ?
10. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court is not helpless and should intervene in the matter by
issuing necessary directions to the Presiding Officers of the Legislative Assemblies, as well as the Parliament. According to him, the Court is competent to issue directions and guide-lines to rectify the situation as the Legislatures and Executive have failed to take any action. It is submitted that necessary directions are required to be issued to fill the vaccum till such time the Legislature steps into to cover the gap or the Executive discharges its role.
11. It is submitted that it is well settled that Articles 194(3), 208(1) and 212(1) of the Constitution of India do not take away in any manner whatsoever the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to judicially review the illegalities that go unabated in the sacred House of Legislatures.
12. The leamed senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, , and Vineet Narain v. Union of India, . 1 find it extremely difficult to accept the submissions made by the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue any directions or frame any guidelines directing as to how the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies have to conduct their business in the House. Any such direction from this Court will amount to interference in the internal functioning of the Assembly or the Parliament, as the case may be. It is for the Speaker of the House and the Members to decide for themselves as to what steps are required to be taken for remedying the malady of unruly and violent behaviour of some of the Members of the House. What would be the appropriate punishment in such cases is left to the wisdom of the House. Even a word of advice by this Court would be contra-constitutional. After all a writ or direction from this Court is not any substitute for the eternal vigilance required to be exercised by
the people. Eternal vigilance is the price of the democracy. The survival of the organised system of Constitutional Government itself would depend upon the vigilance of the people. A writ or direction to cure the evil of unruly and violent behaviour of the Members of the Legislative Assemblies would be worst than the diseases.
13. It is true as urged by the learned senior Counsel in Vishaka’s case (supra), and Vineet Narain ‘s case (supra), the Apex Court held that there are ample powers conferred by Article 32 read with Article 142 to make orders which have the effect of law by virtue of Article 141 and there is mandate to all authorities to act in aid of the orders of the Supreme Court as provided in Article 144 of the Constitution. It is further held that the Apex Court has the power to issue necessary directions to fill the vaccum till such time the Legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role. The Apex Court further held that “it is essential and indeed the constitutional obligation of this Court, under the aforesaid provisions, to issue necessary directions in this behalf.” It is thus clear that the power to issue necessary directions to fill the vaccum till such time the Legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role, is exclusively conferred upon the Supreme Court and in my considered opinion this Court does not possess any such jurisdiction. However, the learned senior Counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484, in particular reference to the observations made by His Lordship, Hansaria, J., in his concurrent judgment, which are to the following effect:
“It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice, and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered.
Absence of provisions like Article 142 is not material, according to me. This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there being no provision in the Constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power of review on the High Court, this Court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singh’s case AIR 1963 SC 1909, that the High Court too can exercise power of review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction. I would say that power to do complete justice also inheres in every Court not to speak of a Court of plenary jurisdiction like of High Court. Of course, this power is not as wide which this Court has under Article 142. That, however is a different matter.”
14. I fail to appreciate as to how the said observation would be of any help and support to the proposition advanced by the learned senior Counsel. In fact, the learned Judge of the Apex Court observed “that the power inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction is not as wide which this Court has under Article 142. That, however, is a different matter”. Therefore, the above decision, does not say that this Court can exercise the same power as the Supreme Court under its jurisdiction conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
15. The decision in Om Prakash Chautala v. State of Haryana, (FB), also does not lend any support whatsoever to the submissions made by the learned senior Counsel. In my considered opinion the respective Legislatures have to device their own methods and decide for themselves as to how to stop the lawlessness and vandalism that goes on unabated in the Legislatures. It is for the Presiding Officers to device effective methods. It is for the people to elect the right persons to represent them in the house to whichever political dispensation one may belong.
16. This Court at the most can appreciate the anxiety and the concern shown by the
petitioner about falling of standards in the Legislatures in conducting the business. It is the people alone who can save this country from the lawlessness of law-makers. It is over to the people and for their wisdom. This Court cannot issue any writ or directions, as prayed for by the petitioner.
17. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly at the admission stage. No costs.