Pandit M. S. M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha and Others.

Judgment

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. 98 (1961] 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 b 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 a 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 proceedings 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 Constitution a House of a Legislature of a 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 a true and faithful report of proceedings of the House and had a 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 a House of State Legislature are the same as . (1) [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. SoO, 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REFORTS 99 those of the House of Commons in those matters z960 until Parliament or a 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 b Others as those of the House of Commons a.t the date of commencement 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 publication of a correct and faithful report of the proceedings of those Legislatures, except those of secret sessions, and had only a limited privilege to prevent mala fide publication of garbled, unfaithful or expunged 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 majority, 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 a notice that the case of breach of privilege against him would be considered by the Committee 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 a citizen of India., the petitioner had the funda.menta.1 right under Art. 19(l)(a.) of the [1961] r96o 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 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 a State by Art. 194(3) of the Constitution was subject to the funds;,, •• 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 control over the majority of the members of the Biha.r Legislative Assembly and of the Committee of Privileges, was proceeding ma1a fide in getting the proceedings 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 a 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 respondents restrained by a writ in the nature of a 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 Assembly reconstituted tho Committee of Privileges of the Assembly, and on tha.t very date a member of the Legislative Assembly sought to move a 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 Assembly, 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 of prorogation of the House several .times could be M. s .• ~~ ~h.arma legally revived and restored. On October 20, 1959, the 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 a 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 recommonded against him for a breach of the privilege of the Speaker and the Assembly. The petitioner again instituted proceedings under Art. 32 of the Constitution 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 violation 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 a citizen of India, had the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression which included the freedom of obtaining the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the time including the proceedings of a Legislature and publishing the same and that no Legislature of a State could claim a 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. [1961] 19'0 the rule of construction adopted by th is Court in its prep "" 1 vious decision had been wrongly applied. It wa.s further M. s. ;,, ~hanna contended tha.t even ifthe Honse of a. State Legislature 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 a wrong appreciation of the legal positiort In short, it is insisted that the petitioner ha.s the fundamental right of publishing the proceedings 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 CommiLtee 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 r96o Privilege of prohibiting or, at any rate, controlling Pandit the publication of its proceedings. M. s. M. Sharma On behalf of the petitioner it was contended by Mr. Basudeva Prasad that respondent No, 2, the Dr. Shree K.rishna Committee of Privile"es has been reconstituted as Sinha & Others 0 aforesaid after the first decision 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 Committee 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 Privileges of Bihar Legislative Assembly and then a 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 personnel. 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 a 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 a question which hais been raised and de9ided after full contest, even though the first Tribunal which decided (<) [1953] S.C.R. 154. SUPREJIIE COVRT REPORTS [1961] r96o the matter may have no jurisdiction to try the sub. P sequent suit and even though the subject.matter of an II h d. I M. s. M. Sharma t e 1spute was not exact y t o same m t e two pmeeedings. 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 a 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 a given time so long as it was a Com- 1 mittee constituted by the same Legisl!l-ti ve Assembly. The question decided by this Court on the previous occasion was substantially a 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 a 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 question 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 indicated 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 10.3 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 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 a 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 a 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, a 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 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, t)lat cannot be a ground for interference 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.compliance with rules of procedure cann·ot be a ground for issuing a 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 subjectmatter of the proceedings in contempt, whatever it was, took place more than three years ago, and that, therefore, it has become much too stale for proceeding ·(3) [1951] S.C.R. 344· 14 Sl'PREME COURT REPORTS [ 1961 l '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 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 inflicting 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 a 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 Parliamentary Practice, 16th Edition, p. 279 :- " The effect of a 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 a 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 carry on or renew the proceedings. In this case, it is '960 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 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 a _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 Department that these words referred to profits made by a co-perative society in its business as a pure co-operative society, i.e., ifLbusi. ness with its own members. within the four corners of the Cooperative 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 a co-operative society in transactions· with nonmembers also. It was always open to the appropriate Government to allow a society to exten<f its business operations to trading with persons other than its members. Once there was such z960 . August 2.