9911796707
TMI BlogWHETHER COURTS CAN INQUIRE INTO PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT?X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WHETHER COURTS CAN INQUIRE INTO PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT? - By: - Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN - Central Excise - Dated:- 31-1-2013 - - 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 proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs 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 publicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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: In the original English text of the Bill forwarded to Lok Sabha Secretariat the rate of 15% was incorporated against sub-heading 8426 . While printing the Bill, the said rate was wrongly printed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12%; The Bill No. 202 of 1985 was introduced in Lok Sabha both in English and Hindu versions; The English version mentioned the relevant rate of duty at 12% and Hindi version incorporated the rate of duty at 15%; After the Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha, the draftsman of the Legislative Department carried out correction in the English version by substituting 15% for 12%; The fact of carrying out correction of inadvertent mistake in the English version by the Legislative Department was not brought to the notice of the Hon ble Speaker of Lok Sabha; The corrected English version was sent to the Government of India Press for printing which contains rate of duty at 15% and the said version was sent to Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returned the corrected version of the Bill without any recommendation; The corrected Bill was submitted to the Hon ble President of India for assent which received the assent of Hon ble President of India on 19.01.1986. 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 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manding 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: English copy of the Bill No. 202 of 1985 printed for introduction in Lok Sabha; Hindi version of the Bill NO. 202 of 1985 for introduction in Lok Sabha; Copy of the Bill No. 202-C of 1985 as pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by Lok Sabha on 16.12.1985; The Gazetted copy of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 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: In view of the Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the language of Bill presented in the parliament is always in English; What was passed by the Lok Sabha in the Parliament in which the rate of duty was mentioned as 12% ad valorem; After the English version of the Bill was passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Lok Sabha, while sending the Bill as passed by the Lok Sabha to Rajya Sabha, a draftsman of the Legislative Department carried out the change without bringing the same to the notice of the Hon ble Speaker and the Hon ble Speaker did not accept the said error as a patent error and did not authorize the error to be corrected; What is passed by requisite majority of the Lok Sabha is the Bill containing the rate of duty @ 12%; The rate of 12% mentioned in the said Act of 1985 published in the Official Gazette is illegal inasmuch as the rate was approved by the Lok Sabha was 12%; The Bill passed by the Lok Sabha shall be treated as passed. The Government submitted the following before the Court: There is a mere irregularity cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt in because of the printing mistake in the English version of the Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha; The Hindi version of the Bill contains the correct rate of 15%; The procedural error was corrected by the draftsman before sending the Bill as passed by Lok Sabha for printing; In view of the Article 122(1) of the Constitution the validity of the proceedings cannot be questioned on the ground of the alleged irregularity of procedure; 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich 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. - - Scholarly articles for knowledge sharing authors experts professionals Tax Management India - taxmanagementindia - taxmanagement - taxmanagementindia.com - TMI - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
