1964 (9) TMI 54 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the High Court to entertain and deal with the habeas corpus petition.
2. Contempt of the Legislative Assembly by the petitioner, advocate, and judges.
3. Competency of the Legislative Assembly to direct the production of judges and advocate in custody.
4. Competency of the Full Bench of the High Court to entertain petitions and pass interim orders.
5. Contempt by a High Court judge for entertaining petitions challenging legislative orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of the High Court to Entertain and Deal with the Habeas Corpus Petition:
The High Court of Uttar Pradesh, specifically the Lucknow Bench consisting of N. U. Beg and G. D. Sahgal JJ., was competent to entertain and deal with the petition of Keshav Singh challenging the legality of the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh for its contempt and for infringement of its privileges. The Court had to ascertain whether the detention was under a general warrant before dismissing the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The petition did not initially show that the detention was under a general warrant, thus the Court had the competence to deal with the petition and make orders, including granting bail.

2. Contempt of the Legislative Assembly by the Petitioner, Advocate, and Judges:
On the facts and circumstances of the case, Keshav Singh, by causing the petition to be presented on his behalf to the High Court, B. Solomon, Advocate, by presenting the said petition, and the two Hon'ble Judges by entertaining and dealing with the said petition and ordering the release of Keshav Singh on bail pending disposal of the said petition, did not commit contempt of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh. The actions taken were within the legal framework and did not constitute willful illegality or contempt.

3. Competency of the Legislative Assembly to Direct the Production of Judges and Advocate in Custody:
It was not competent for the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh to direct the production of the two Hon'ble Judges and B. Solomon, Advocate, in custody. The Assembly cannot find individuals guilty of contempt without giving them a hearing. The Assembly's privilege to "cause persons to be brought in custody to the Bar to answer charges of contempt" does not extend to judges performing their judicial duties. The Assembly had modified its resolution to request explanations rather than custody, indicating an understanding of the limits of its powers.

4. Competency of the Full Bench of the High Court to Entertain Petitions and Pass Interim Orders:
The Full Bench of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh was competent to entertain and deal with the petitions of the two Hon'ble Judges and B. Solomon, Advocate, and to pass interim orders restraining the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents from implementing the Assembly's directions. The petitions were validly presented, and the Full Bench had the authority to issue interim orders to prevent the execution of potentially unlawful resolutions.

5. Contempt by a High Court Judge for Entertaining Petitions Challenging Legislative Orders:
A judge of a High Court who entertains or deals with a petition challenging any order or decision of a Legislature imposing any penalty on the petitioner or issuing any process against the petitioner for its contempt, or for infringement of its privileges and immunities, does not commit contempt of the said Legislature. The Legislature is not competent to take proceedings against such a judge in the exercise and enforcement of its powers, privileges, and immunities. This conclusion is based on the principle that judicial independence and the right to challenge potentially unlawful actions are fundamental to the rule of law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment clarifies that the High Court has the competency to entertain habeas corpus petitions challenging legislative actions, and such actions by the judiciary do not constitute contempt of the Legislature. The Legislative Assembly does not have the authority to direct the production of judges in custody or to penalize them for performing their judicial duties. The Full Bench of the High Court was within its rights to pass interim orders to prevent the implementation of the Assembly's resolutions.