PANDIT M. S. M. SHARMA versus DR. SHREE KRISHNA SINHA AND OTHERS.

Dalip Singh v. The Slale of Punjab

Das Gupta f•

observation. It·had.not in that case to deal with a·rule w.liich did provide for compulsory retirement, at any age w·hatsoever irrespective of the length of. service put in. It will not be' pr'oper to read the observation~ in Doshi's" Gase referred to above as laying down the law that retirement undar the..rule we are considering must necessarily be regarded as dismissal cir removal within the meaning of Art. 311. .

}Ve are therefore oI opinion that the High Court was right in holding that the order of compulsory retire-ment made against the appellant was not removal from service so as to attract the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution and that the suit was rightly dis-missed. 'The appeal Is accqrdingly dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

August I.

PANDIT M. S. M. SHARMA .-v.

DR. SHREE KRISHNA -SINHA AND OTHERS. (:!} •. P. SINHA; c. J., JAFER IMAM, P. B. GAJENDRA-GADKll.R, A. K. SARKAR, K.- SUBBA RAO, -K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA and J. 0. SHAH, JJ.)

State Legislature-Breach of Privilege-Decision of Court, if res-judicata betw.en parties-Constitution of India, Arts. I94(3), Ig(I)(a).

The petitioner, the Editor of the Searchlight, an English daily newspaper published from Patna, was called upon to show cause before .the Committee of Privileges of the Bihar Legisla-tive .A:ssembly why. he should not be proceeded against for the breach of privilege of the Speaker and the Assembly for publish-ing 1tn)naccurate .account of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. He moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitu-tioµ for quashing the said proceediqg and the question for deci-sion in ~ubstance was whetjier the said ·privilege conferred ·by Art. 194(3) of the Constitution was subject to the fundamental

rights of citizen under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This r960 Court by majority found against the petitioner. Thereafter the Assembly was prorogued several times, the Committee of Pandit Privileges reconstituted and fresh notice was issued to, the M. S. M. Sharma petitioner. By the present petition the petitioner ip. substance v. sought to reopen the decision, raise t~·e;same contrbv~rsy once Dr. Shree Krish~a again and contend that the majority detision was wrong. The Sinha 6- Others question was whether he could he allowed to do so.

Held, that the general principles of res judicata applied and the judgment of this Court could not be allowed to be reopened and must bind the petitioner and the Legislative Assembly of Bihar and the reconstitution of the Committee of Privileges in the meantime could make no difference.

Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, [1953) S.C.R. 154, applied. Since this Court had held that the Legislature had the power to control the publication of its proceedings and punish any breach of its privilege, there could be no doubt that it had com-. plete jurisdiction to carry on its proceedings in accordance with its rules of business and mere non-compliance with rules of pro-cedure could be no ground for interference by this Court under

Art. 32 of the Constitution.

Janardan Reddy v. The State of Hyderabad, [1951] S.C.R. 344, referred to.

Prorogation of the Assembly does not meap. its dissolution and the only effect it has is to interrupt its proceedings which can be revived on fresh motiqn to carry on or renew them. It was, therefore, not correct to contend that since the Assembly was prorogued several times since after the, alleged breach of privilege, the proceeding ml)st be deemed to be dead.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 176 of 1959.

Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Righ.ts.

Basudeva Prasad, M. K. Ramamurthi, K. N. Keshwa and R. Mahalingier, for the petitioner. -

Lal Narain Sinha, B. K. P. Sinha, L. S. Sinha and

B. P .. Varma, for the respondents.

M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, 0. K.

Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, H. J. Umrigar and T. M. Sen, for the Attorney-General of India.

1960. August 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SINHA C. J.-By this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner raises almost the same // 13

Sinha C. J.

i96o controversy as bad been done in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1958, which was beard and determined by this M 5 ~:ind~harma Court by its judgment dated December 12, 1958, and · · '.· by Writ Petition No. 106 of 1959, which was heard by Dr. Shm Krishna this Court on November 10, ll and 12, 1959, but which · Sfoha Others did not reach the stage of judgment by this Court, ina.smuch as the petitioner's Advocate requested the Sinha c. J. Court to permit him to withdraw the petition and the Court allowed the prayer and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition. In each of these petitions the petitioner, who is journalist by profession and is functioning as the Editor of "the Searchlight", an English daily newspa.per published from Patna in the State of Bihar, impugned the validity of the proceed-ings before the Committee of Privileges and pra.yed for restraining the opposite party, namely, the Chief Minister of Biha.r as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, Bihar Legislative Assembly, Committee of Privileges and the Secretary of the Bihar Legisla.tive · Assembly, from proceeding a.gainst the petitioner for the publication in its issue dated Ma.y 31, 1957, of the Searchlight an account of the debate in the Legisla.-tive Assembly, Bihar, on May 30, 1957.

The facts of the caRC have been stated in great detail in the majority judgment of this Court delivered by S. R. Dae, C. J., in M. S. M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha('). In the opening paragraph of this Court's judgment aforesaid, the parties before the Court have been enumerated and the anomaly pointed out. This Court held in effect that under Art. 194(3) of the Con-stitution House of Legislature of State has the same powers, privileges and immunities as the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom had at the commencement of the Constitution. The House of Commons at the relevant date had the power or privilege of prohibiting the publication of even true and faithful report of proceedings of the House and had fortiori the power or privilege of prohibiting the pu blica ti on of an inaccurate or garbled version of such debate or proceedings. The 'powers or privileges of House of State Legislature are the same as . (1) [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. SoO,

those of the House of Commons in those matters

until Parliament or State Legislature, a.a the ca.se . may be, ma.y by law define those powers or privi- M. st;d~hrma leges. Unti) that event has happened the powers, .,, privileges and immunities .of a. House of Legislature of Dr. Shree Kri.sh•a a. State or of its members and committees ate the sa.me Sinha Others as those of the House of Commons a.t the date of com-mencement of our Constitution. This' Court also ex-Sinha c. f. pressed. the view that Legislatures in this country like the House of Commons will no doubt appreciate the benefit of publicity and will not exercise those powers, privileges and immunities, except in gross cases. The minority judgment delivered by Subba. Rao, J., on the other hand, expressed , 'ie view that at the relevant date the House of Cc,.·nmons, even as the Legislatures in this country, had no privilege to prevent the publi-cation of correct and faithful report of the proceed-ings of those Legislatures, except those of secret sessions, and had only limited privilege to prevent mala fide publication of garbled, unfaithful or expung-ed reports of the proceedings. He also held tha.t the petitioner ha.d the fonds.mental right to publish the report of the proceedings of the Legislature. In the result, this Court, in view of the judgment of the majo-rity, dismissed the petition, but ma.de no order a.a to costs. This Court further held that the Assembly of Bihar was entitled to take proceedings for breach of its privileges and it was for the House itself to determine whether there had in fact been any breach of any of its privileges. .

. ·After Writ Petition No. 122 of 1958 had thus ended, the petitioner again moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. That case was registered a.a Writ Petition No. 106 of 1959. On January 5, 1959, the petitioner received notice that the case of breach of privilege against him would be considered by the Com-mittee of Privileges of the Assembly on February 3, 1959. That hearing wa.s postponed from date to date, until in August, 1959, the petitioner filed his petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. He contended in that petition that, a.a citizen of India., the petitioner had the funda.menta.1 right under Art. 19(l)(a.) of ther96o Constitution to freedom of speech and expression which included the freedom of publication and circula-M s.~;1n ~h••••a tion and that the Legislature of the State of Biha.r v. could not claim any privilege contrary to the right Dr. Shm Krishna th us claimed. In effect, it was contended that the Sinha &· Othm privilege conferred on the Legislature of State by Art. 194(3) of the Constitution was subject to the fund-s;,, •• c. J. amental right of a. citizen contained in Art. 19(I)(a). It was also contended that the first respondent, the Chief Minister of Bihar, who, it was alleged, ha.d con-trol over the majority of the members of the Biha.r Legislative Assembly and of the Committee of Privi-leges, was proceeding ma1a fide in getting the proceed-ings instituted against the petitioner for alleged breach of the privilege of the House. Though not in terms, but in effect, the points raised in this petition were reiteration of those already determined by this Court in its judgment aforesaid of December 12, 1958. The prayer made in the petition was that the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges a.t its meeting held on August IO, 1958, might be quashed and the respon-dents restrained by writ in the nature of writ of prohibition from proceeding against the petitioner in respect of publication aforesaid of the proceedings of the Bihar Legislative Assembly of May 30, 1957. After the petitioner had made his writ a.pplica.tion to this Court as aforesaid, the Bihar Legislative Assem-bly reconstituted tho Committee of Privileges of the Assembly, and on tha.t very date member of the Legislative Assembly sought to move motion in that Assembly for revive.I a.nd re-reference of the matter of the alleged breach of privilege by the petitioner. Some memberscof the Bihar Legislative Assembly objected to the motion being moved and the Speaker of the Assembly deferred giving his ruling on that objection. At the instance of some of the members of the Assem-bly, the Speaker of tho Assembly referred two queE· tions to the Advocate General of Bihar for his opinion on the floor of the House on October 20, 1959, namely, (1) whether it was open to tho Assem-. bly to debate on an issue which might be sub judice

in view of the writ petition aforesaid filed by. the

petitioner in the Supreme Court under Art. 32; and 1 960 (2) whether the matter which was dead by reason P a·t of prorogation of the House several .times could be M. s .• ~~ ~h.arma legally revived and restored. On October 20, 1959, the v. Advocate General of Bihar attended the House and Dr. Shm Krishna gave his opinion, which it is not relevant to state here. ~Sinha & Others The Writ Petition, 106 of 1959, was heard in part and allowed to be withdrawn, as indicated above, on Sinha c. f. November 12, 1959.

!)n November 24, 1959, the petitioner received

fresh notice from the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly, opposite party No. 3, calling upon the petitioner to show cause on or before December 1, 1959, why appropriate action should not be recom-monded against him for breach of the privilege of the Speaker and the Assembly. The petitioner again instituted proceedings under Art. 32 of the Constitu-tion complaining that the motion adopted by the Committee of Privileges of the Bihar .Legislative Assembly at its meeting held on November 23, 1959, amounted,to an abridgement of his fundamental right of speech 'and expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and was an "illegal and mala .fide threat to the petitioner's rersona.l liberty in viola-tion of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and that the Committee of Privileges, respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction Ol" authority to proceed against the petitioner a.s threatened by the notice aforesaid ".The grounds of attack raise substantially the same questions that were agitated on the previous occasions in this Court. It was contended before us that the pet.it.ioner, as citizen of India, had the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression which in-cluded the freedom of obtaining the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the time including the proceedings of Legislature and publishing the same and that no Legislature of State could claim privilege so as to curtail that right. It was, therefore, contended that the majority decision of this Court in Pt. M. S. M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha (1) was wrong, In this connection it was also contended that

(1) [1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 806.

19'0 the rule of construction adopted by th is Court in its pre-M. s. p ;,, "" 1 ~hanna contended tha.t even vious decision had been wrongly applied. ifthe Honse of a. State It wa.s Legislature further v. ha.d the ea.me powers, privileges and immunities a.a Dr. Sim K•ishna those of the House of Commons, those will be only Sida 6: Othm such a.a were being a.ctua.lly exercised a.t· the da.te of the commencement of the Constitution a.nd the right Si•ha c. J. to prevent publication of its proceedings was not one of those powers, privileges or immunities. An a.ppea.1 wa.s a.Iso ma.de to Art. 21 of the Constitution a.nd it we.a contended tha.t no citizen could be deprived of his persona.I liberty, except in a.ccorda.nce with the procedure established by la.w. Hence, it we.a further contended tha.t the ma/.a fide a.ct of respondents 1 11.n<l 2 ca.Hing upon the petitioner to show ca.use wad a. threat to his funda.menta.l right, a.nd, finally, it wa.s contended tha.t after severe.I prorogati?ns, the previous proceedings for breach of privilege were dead a.nd. the House of the Assembly ha.d, therefore, no power or jurisdiction to issue the fresh notice in accordance with the motion of Novembor 23, 1959, reviving tho proceedings.

· It will thus appear tha.t in the present proceedings also the very same questions which were discussed a.nd decided in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1958 a.re sought to be raised once a.gain. I'i:1 effect, it is sought to be a.r~ued tha.t the previous decision of this Court / ha.s proceeded on wrong appreciation of the legal positiort In short, it is insisted that the petitioner ha.s the fundamental right of publishing the proceed-ings of the Bihar Legislature and tha.t the Legisla.turn bas no power to restrict or control the publication of its proceedings.

The Government Advocate of Biha.r, on behalf of the opposite party, ha.s contended, in the first instance, tha.t the present writ petition age.inst the parties, namely, the Cha.irma.n and the Members of the Com-miLtee of Privileges, respondents I a.nd 2, is barred by the principle of res judicata and, therefore, not ma.inta.iua.ble. His contention a.Iso is tha.t the writ cannot issue either age.inst a.n individual member or against the House of the Legislature a.s a. whole in

respect of what has been done by it in exercise of its P[rivilege ][of ][prohibiting or, ][at ][any ][rate, controlling ]the publication of its proceedings.

Pandit M. s. M. Sharma v.

On behalf of the petitioner it was contended by v. Mr. Basudeva Prasad that respondent No, 2, the Dr. Shree K.rishna Committee of Privile"es has been reconstituted as Sinha & Others aforesaid after the first decision 0 ' of this Court which is sought to be availed of as res judicata and that Sinha c. f. therefore the rule of res judicata· is inapplicable. In this connection it may be pointed out .that in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1958, Sri Krishna Sinha, Chief Minister of Bihar, was imp!eaded as opposite party No. 1 in his capacity as the Chairman of the Com-mittee of Privileges of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and opposite party No. 2 was cited as Committee of Privileges, Bihar Legislative Assembly, without any names being given. In the present writ petition, opposite party No. 1 is the same. Opposite party No. 2 is impleaded as the (New) Committee of Privi-leges of Bihar Legislative Assembly and then number o,f names are given including that of Dr. Sri Krishna Sinha, the Chief Minister, as Chairman. Would it make any difference that though opposite party No. 2 is the Committee of Privileges, its per-sonnel. is different from that of the Committee of Privileges constituted as it was in 1958 ! In our opinion, it does not make any difference. So long as the Assembly remains the same it is open to the Assembly to reconstitute its Committees according to the exigencies of the business of the Assembly. The Committee of Privileges is one of the agencies through which the Assembly has to transact its business. It is really the Assembly as whole which is proceeding against the petitioner in purported exercise of its powers, privileges and immunities as held _by this Court in its judgment in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1958. This Court has laid it dowri in the case of Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen (1) that the principle underlying res judicata is applicable in respect of question which hais been raised and de9ided after full contest, even though the first Tribunal which decided

(<) [1953] S.C.R. 154.

the matter may have no jurisdiction to try the sub.

M. s. P M. an Sharma II [. ]sequent t 1spute was not d. suit and even exact though I y t o same m t two the subject.matter . pm-of v. eeedings. In that case the rule of res judicata·waii Dr. Shrtt Krishna applied to litigation in land acquisition proceedings. Sinha&. Others In that case the general principles of law bearing on the rule of res judicata, and not the provisions of s. 11 Sinha c. J. of the Code of Civil Procedure, were applied to tho ca.se. The rule of res judicata is meant to give finality to decision arrived at after due contest and a.foer hearing the parties interested in the controversy. There cannot be the least doubt that, though eo nomine opposite party No. 2 were not the same, but there is no escape from the conclusion that the Committee of Privileges is the same Committee irrespective of its personnel at given time so long as it was Com-1 mittee constituted by the same Legisl!l-ti ve Assembly. The question decided by this Court on the previous occasion was substantially question affecting the whole Legislature of the State of Bihe.r and was of genera.I importance and did not dopend upon tho particular constitution of the Committee of Privileges. It cannot, therefore, be said that the question decided by this Court on the previous occasion had not been folly debated and had not been decided after duo deli. beration. That there was difference of opinion and one of the Judges constituting the Court held another view only shows that there was room for difference of opinion. It was judgment of this Court which binds the petitioner as also the Legislative Assembly of Bihar. For the application of the genera.I principles of res judicata, it is not necessary to go into the ques-tion whether the previous decision was right or wrong. In our opinion, therefore, the questions determined by the previous decision of this Court cannot be reopened in the present case and must govern the rights and obligations of the parties whieh, as indica-ted above, a.re substantially the same. It is manifest, therefore, that the petitioner has no fundamcnta.1 right which is being threatened to be infringed by the proceedings ta.ken by the opposite party. lt now remains to consider the other subsidiary

questions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It was Ig6o contended .that the procedure adopted inside th~ Hou~e Pandit of the Legislature was not regular and not strictly m M. s. M ~ Sharma accordance with law. There are two answers to this v. contention, firstly, that according to the previous deci. Dr. Shree K6>hna sion of this Court, the petitioner has not the fund-Sinha <~ Othm amental right claimed by him. Re is, therefore, out of Court. Secondly, the validity of the proceedings Sinha c. f. inside the Legislature of State cannot be called in question on the allegation that the procedure laid down by the law had not been strictly followed. Article 212 of the Constitution is complete ·answer to this part of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. No Court can go into those questions which are within the special jurisdiction of the Legislature itself, which has the power to conduct its own business. Possibly, third answer to this part of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that it is yet premature to consider the question of procedure as the Committee is yet to conclude its proceedings. It must also be observ-ed that once it has been held that the Legislature has the jurisdiction to control the publication of its pro-ceedings and to go into the question whether there has been any breach of its privileges, the Legislature is vested with complete jurisdiction to carry on its pro-ceedings in accordance with its rules of business. Even though it may not have strictly complied with the requirements of the procedural law laid down for con-ducting its business, t)lat cannot be ground for inter-ference by this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Courts have always recognised the basic· difference between complete want of jurisdiction and improper or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. \Mere non.com-pliance with rules of procedure cann·ot be ground for issuing writ under Art. 32 of the Constitution vide J aoordan Reddy v. The State of Hyderabad (1 ).

It was also sought to be argued that the subject-matter of the proceedings in contempt, whatever it was, took place more than three years ago, and that, there-fore, it has become much too stale for proceeding ·(3) [1951] S.C.R. 344·

'96° age.inst the petitioner in contempt. In our opinion, P this is also a. matter within the jurisdiction of the M. s. ,~ ~"•••i• Legislature which must decide whether or not it was v. recent enough to he ta.ken serious notice of, or whether Dr. sn.u K"shn• any punishment in the event of the petitioner being S1nh• '-" 01hm found guilty is . ca.lied for. These are matters with which this Court is in no way concerned. Mr. Lal 5'""" c. 1· :Kara.in Sinha., the Government Advocate of Bihar, who appeared on behalf of tho respondents, informed the Court that the Legislature wa.s interested more in the vindication of its constitutional rights than in inflict-ing any punishment on the petitioner. Hence, no more need be said on this aspect of the matter.

lt remains to consider one other point sought to be made on behalf of the petitioner that the Assembly had no power to proceed against the petitioner for breach of privilege in May, 1957 when we know as fact that the Assembly wa.s prorogued several times between May 31, 1957 a.nd November 23, 1959. In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention, for the simple reason that the prorogation of the Assembly does not mean its dissolution. The House remains the same; only its sessions are interrupted by prorogation of the. House according to the exigencies of public demands on the time and attention of the members of the Assembly and the volume of business of the Assembly itself. In this connection reliance wa.s pla.ced on the following passage in May's Parlia-mentary Practice, 16th Edition, p. 279 :-

" The effect of prorogation is at once to suspend

all business until Parliament shall be summoned again. Not only are the sittings of Parliament at an end, but all proceedings pending at tho time are quashed, except impeachments by the Commons and appeals before the House of Lords. Every bill must therefore be renewed after prorogation, as if it were introduced for the first time."

The observations quoted above do not support the extreme contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings in contempt are dead for all time. The effect of the prorogation only is to interrupt the proceedings which a.re revived on a. fresh motion to

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

'9[[60 ]]

carry on or renew the proceedings. In this case, it is '9[[60 ]]not necessary to pronounce upon the question whether P-;;n--;;i, dissolution of the House necessarily has the effect of M. s. M. Sharma completely wiping out the contempt or the proceedings v. relating thereto. Dr .. Shree Krishna In· our opinion, for the reasons given above, no Sinha & Others grounds have been made out for the exercise by this Sinha c. J. Court of its powers under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.

HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE

BANK LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME.TAX, SIMLA.

(8. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, and J. c. SHAH, Jj,)

Income-tax-Co-operative Society-Profits earned in business with non-members-Whether exempt from tax-Income-tax Act, I92I (IX of I92I), s. 60, notification.

The assessee Bank, which was _co-operative society, did business is controlled commodities with the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and earned profits. It claimed that these profits were also exempt from taxation under F. D. (C. R.) Notification R. Dis. No. 291-I. T./25 dated August 25, 1925, as subsequently amended, issued under s. 60 of the Income-tax Act. This notification exempted "the profits of any co-operative society." from tax. It was urged for the Depart-ment that these words referred to profits made by co-perative society in its business as pure co-operative society, i.e., ifLbusi. ness with its own members. within the four corners of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, and the bye-laws made thereunder.

Held, that the said profits were exempt from tax. The words of the Notification were wide enough to include profits of business of co-operative society in transactions· with non-members also. It was always open to the appropriate Govern-ment to allow society to exten<f its business operations to trad-ing with persons other than its members. Once there was such

. August 2.