Delhi Law Academy Jaipur presents below for aspirants of Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS), DJS, PCS (J) and other Judicial Services throughout India a very important Advisory Opinion of the Supreme Court of India.

Presented below: Summarized version [by Delhi Law Academy Jaipur] of the Supreme Court Advisory Opinion in the case of SPECIAL REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 1964.

J U D G M E N T

Special Reference No. 1 of 1964

Keshav Singh’s Case

1. This is Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 by which the President has formulated five questions for the opinion of this Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution.

2. It appears that on March 14, 1964, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh administered, in the name of and under the orders of the Legislative Assembly, a reprimand to Keshav Singh, who is a resident of Gorakhpur, for having committed contempt of the House and also for having committed a breach of the privileges of Narsingh Narain Pandey, a member of the House. The contempt and the breach of privileges in question arose of a pamphlet which was printed and published and which bore the signature of Keshav Singh along with the signature of other persons. In pursuance of the decision taken by the House later on the same day, the Speaker directed that Keshav Singh be committed to prison for committing another contempt of the House by his conduct in the House when he was summoned to receive the aforesaid reprimand and for writing a disrespectful letter to the Speaker of the House earlier. According to this order, a warrant was issued over the signature of the Speaker of the House, Mr. Verma, directing that Keshav Singh be detained in the District Jail, Lucknow, for a period of seven days, and in execution of the warrant Keshav Singh was detained in the Jail.

3. On March 19, 1964, Mr. B. Solomon, an Advocate practising before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, presented a petition to the High Court on behalf of Keshav Singh under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as well as under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. The Court then passed an Order that the applicant should be released on bail on furnishing two sureties in a sum of Rs. 1,000 each and a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Lucknow.

6. Taking notice of the order passed by the High Court on Keshav Singh’s petition, the House proceeded to pass a resolution on March 21, 1964. This resolution said that the House was of the definite view that M/s. G. D. Sahgal, N. U. Beg, Keshav Singh and B. Solomon had committed contempt of the House and therefore, it was ordered that Keshav Singh should immediately be taken into custody and kept confined in the District Jail, Lucknow, for the remaining term of his imprisonment and M/s. N. U. Beg, G. D. Sahgal and B. Solomon should be brought in custody before the House. The resolution further added that after Keshav Singh completed the term of his imprisonment, he should be brought before the House for having again committed contempt of the House on March 19, 1964.

7. The two learned Judges heard about this resolution on the radio on the evening of March 21, and read about it in the morning edition of the Northern India Patrika published on March 22, 1964. That is why they rushed to the Allahabad High Court with separate petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. These petitions alleged that the impugned Resolution passed by the House was wholly unconstitutional and violated the provisions of Art. 211 of the Constitution. According to the petitions, the application made by Keshav Singh under Art. 226 was competent and in making an order releasing Keshav Singh, the Judges were exercising their jurisdiction and authority as Judges of the High Court under Art. 226. Their contention was that the resolution passed by the House amounted to contempt of Court, These petitions were filed on March 23, 1964.

8. Apprehending that these developments had given rise to a very serious problem a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court consisting of 28 Judges took up on the same day the petitions presented before them by their two colleagues at Lucknow, directed that the said petitions should be admitted and ordered the issue of notices against the respondents restraining the Speaker from issuing the warrant in pursuance of the direction of the House given to him on March 21, 1964, and from securing execution of the warrant if already issued, and restraining the Government of U.P. and the Marshal of the House from executing the warrant.

9. Meanwhile, on March 25, 1964, Mr. Solomon, the learned Advocate of Keshav Singh, presented a similar petition to the High Court under Art, 226.

10. This application again was heard by a Full Bench of 28 Judges of the Allahabad High Court on March 25, and after admitting the petition, an interim order was passed prohibiting the implementation of the resolution the validity of which was challenged by the petitioner.

11. On the same day, the House passed a clarificatory resolution. As a result of this resolution, the warrants issued for the arrest of the two learned Judges and Mr. Solomon were withdrawn, with the result that the two learned Judges and Mr. Solomon were placed under an obligation to appear before the House and offer their explanations as to why the House should not proceed against them for their alleged contempt of the House.

13. When the incidents which happened in such quick succession from March 19 to March 25, 1964, had reached this stage, the President decided to exercise his power to make a reference to this Court under Art. 143(1) of the Constitution on March 26, 1964.

📘 Free Study Material for Judiciary Aspirants!

Download our FREE study material prepared by Delhi Law Academy’s expert faculty.

✅ Check Free Study Material

…………………

143. Having thus discussed all the relevant points argued before us and recorded our conclusions on them, we are now in a position to render our answers to the five questions referred to us the President. Our answers are :-

(2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, Keshav Singh by causing the petition to be presented on his behalf to the High Court of Uttar Pradesh as aforesaid, Mr. B. Solomon Advocate, by presenting the said petition, and the said 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.

(3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not competent for the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh to direct the production of the said two Hon’ble Judges and Mr. B. Solomon Advocate, before it in custody or to call for their explanation for its contempt.

(4) On the facts and circumstances of the case, it was competent for the Full Bench of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh to entertain and deal with the petitions of the said two Hon’ble Judges and Mr. B. Solomon Advocate, and to pass interim orders restraining the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to the said Legislative Assembly; and

Explore More Free Resources from Delhi Law Academy

Stay updated with our monthly current affairs and explore more important legal and judicial-service articles from Delhi Law Academy.