Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
(Decided on 20th June, 1955).
Government of India Act, 1935, S. 87 (2)‑Bars Courts interference with Speaker's exercise of Powers vested in him under the Act.
Section 87 (2) of the Government of India Act operates as a bar to any proceedings in Court against the speaker in respect of his exercise of the Powers vested in him under the Act.
A temporary injunction issued earlier restraining the speaker from preventing the appellant from exercising his rights as a member of the Sind Legislative Assembly and also from voting as a member of the said Legislative Assembly in the ensuing election to the Constituent Assembly was vacated.
Gradlough v. Gossett 12 Q B D 271 ref.
Civil Procedure Code (h of 1908), O. XLVII, r. 1 Erroneous decision without adverting to provision of law bearing on it‑Review lies.
When a Court disposes of a case without adverting to or applying its mind to a provision of law, that may amount to an error analogous to one apparent on the face of the record sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Order XLVII, Rule 1.
A temporary injunction issued against the Sind Legisla tive Assembly Speaker without adverting to the bar of section 87 (2), Government of India Act, 1935 vas vacated on review.
A I R 1949 F C 106 ref.
S. Nasir‑ud‑din, for Speaker Sind Legislative Assembly.
Manzar‑i‑Alam, for Agha Ghulam Nabi Pathan
MUNSHI, J.
--‑This is an application filed on behalf of the speaker of the Sind Legislative Assembly under Order XLVII, Rule 1 Civil P. C. to review the order passed by this Court on 1st June, 1955, issuing a temporary injunction restraining him from preventing the appellant Agha Ghulam Nabi Pathan from exercising his rights as a member of the Sind Legislative t Assembly and also from voting as a member of the said Legislative Assembly in the ensuing election to the Constituent Assembly.
The application proceeds on the ground that Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the powers exercised by the Speaker in the conduct of business of the Assembly and in regulating the procedure therein. Reliance is placed on s subsection 2 of section 87 of the Government of India Act.
That subsection reads as under:
"No officer or other member of Provincial Legislature in whom powers are vested by or under this Act for regula ting the procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining the order, in the legislature, shall be subject to jurisdiction of any Court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers'".
It would thus appear that the Speaker who is an officer of the Provincial Legislature, invested with powers under the Act to conduct business and to regulate procedure in the Legislature is not subject to the jurisdiction of a Court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.
Mr. Manzare Alam for the respondent contended that the act of restraining his client from entering the Assembly Hall and from exercising his right as a member does not fall within the Powers of the Speaker. We do not agree with him. The Speaker who is charged with the duty of maintain ing order and of conducting business and regulating procedure in the Hall will be within his rights in preventing a person from entering the Hall or the expelling a person who has entered the same. Such action on the part of the Speaker will fall within the terms regulating procedure and the conduct of business and hence the provisions of section 87 (2) will apply. No Court therefore can restrain the Speakers from exercising the said powers, nor can it question the manner in which that power has been exercised. This principle of non‑interference has been recognised in the case of Gradlough v. Gossett (12 Q B D 271) where it was held that what is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in the Court of Law. The Court recognised as one of the previleges of the House of Commons. The exclusive right to regulate it's own internal affairs. In this connection the following observations of Stephens, J. who delivered the judgment are worthy of note:
"It seems to follow that the House of Commons has the exclusive power of interpreting the statute so far as the regulation of it's own proceedings within its walls, is concerned ; and that, even if that interpretation should be erroneous, this Court has no power to interfere with it directly or indirectly ."
Section 87 (2) of the Government of India Act therefore operates as a bar to any proceedings in Court against the A Speaker in respect of his exercise of the Powers vested in him under the Act.
Mr. Manzare Alam next argued that omission to take into consideration on the provisions of section 87 (2) of the Government of India Act does not fall within the meaning of the terms 'mistake or error apparent on the face of the record' employed in Order XLV II, Rule 1. The gist of his argument was that O. XLVII, Rule 1 does not apply where the order sought to be reviewed is based on a wrong exposition of law. That argument, in our opinion, would not apply to the present case as here there has been no exposition of law. Section 87 (2) of the Government of India Act was not mentioned by the learned Counsel on either side and con sequently there has been‑ no reference to it in the order sought to be reviewed. It would have been a different matter if the point had been raised and decision given thereon.
It has been held in A T R 1949 F. C. at page 1.06 that when a Court disposes of a case without adverting to or applying its mind to a provision of law, that may amount to an error analogous to one apparent on the face of the record c sufficient to bring the case within the purview, of O. XLVII, Rule 1 and that therefore the Court is not incompetent to re‑consider the matter after the judgment, if it so desires.
Thus in view of the provisions of section 87 (2) of the Act this Court had no jurisdiction to pass the order sought to be reviewed and it cannot reasonably be argued that this error is not apparent on the face of the record. No research into the case‑law is required to discover this error.
We therefore allow this application and vacate the order passed on 1st June, 1955. The costs of this application are directed to be borne by the appellant Mr. Ghulam Nabi Pathan.
As this involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of section 87 (2) of the Government of India Act we issue a certificate under section 205 of the Act.
A. H. Injunction vacated.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer