Article Section | |||||||||||
Home Articles Central Excise Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN Experts This |
|||||||||||
WHETHER COURTS CAN INQUIRE INTO PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT? |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
WHETHER COURTS CAN INQUIRE INTO PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT? |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Article 122(1) of the Constitution provides that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. Likewise Article 212(2) of the Constitution provides that 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. In ‘Kesav Singh case’ – AIR 1965 SC 745 the Supreme Court while construing Article 212(1) observed that it may be possible for a citizen to call in question in the appropriate court of law, the validity of any proceedings inside the legislature if his case is that the said proceedings suffer not from mere irregularity of procedure, but from an illegality. If the impugned procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it would be open to be scrutinized in a court of law, though such scrutiny is prohibited if the complaint against the procedure is no more than this that the procedure was irregular. The Supreme Court further held that the same principle would equally be applicable in the matter of interpretation of Article 122 of the Constitution. In ‘M.S.M. Sharma V. Dr. Shree Krishna & Others’ – 1960 (8) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court observed that once it has been held that the legislature has the jurisdiction to control the publication of its proceedings 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 proceedings 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 conducting its business that cannot be a ground for interference by the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. Courts have always recognized the basic difference between complete want of jurisdiction and improper or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. Mere non-compliance with rules of procedure cannot be a ground for issuing a writ under Article 32 of the constitution. In ‘Garlick Engineering V. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay – III’ – 2013 (1) TMI 609 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT the petitioner is the manufacturer of cranes which were covered under the Tariff Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner claimed that the appropriate rate of duty for the cranes was fixed at 12% ad valorem. An amendment was brought in this regard in the year 1985 and the cranes were brought under Chapter 84, Heading 84.26 and subheading 8426. In this processing the following stages were taken:
The said Act was gazetted on 06.03.1986. The petitioner filed classification list with effect from 01.03.1986 in which the cranes were shown as falling under sub heading 8426 and the applicable rate of duty as 12% ad valorem. The classification was approved, but the rate of duty was altered to 15% ad valorem. The petitioner filed a fresh classification list on 30.03.1986 showing the rate at 12%. The approval was given with the rate of duty @ 12%. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice during August 1986 demanding duty amounting to Rs.15,08,034.20 in respect of clearance of cranes during the period from 01.03.1986 to 31.07.1986 alleging that the duty payable on the cranes was 15% ad valorem and not 12% ad valorem. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) along with a stay application. As the stay application was not decided, the present petition was filed by the petitioner. The court directed the Government to produce the documents as detailed below:
The Government submitted the report elaborating the incidents taken place as indicated in para 4 of this article. It is stated by the Government that the correction which was carried out by the draftsman was not put up before the Hon’ble Speaker for acceptance as a patent error. The petitioner submitted the following submissions before the Court:
The Government submitted the following before the Court:
The High Court observed that the irregularity in the present case is to the extent of failure to bring the correction of the obvious printing error to the notice of the Hon’ble Speaker to exercise the power under Rule 95. The assent of the Hon’ble President of India has been received to the Bill which contains the rate of 15%. Failure to obtain sanction of the Hon’ble Speaker under Rule 95 of the Rules of procedure in the fact of this case is thus, only a procedural defect. There is no illegality attached to it. At highest, there is an irregularity of the procedure. Therefore, the High Court held that the bar of Article 122(1) of the Constitution of India will be squarely attracted in the present case. The High Court rejected the petition filed by the petitioner.
By: Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN - January 31, 2013
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||