The Hindu : National : Constitutional experts divided over Speaker's action

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Mar 12, 2005

National

National

Constitutional experts divided over Speaker's action

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI, MARCH 11 . Constitutional experts are divided on whether the Jharkhand pro tem Speaker has committed contempt of court by adjourning the proceedings to March 15 instead of allowing the floor test in the House to be completed today as directed by the Supreme Court.

While senior lawyers Fali S. Nariman and C.S. Vaidyanathan say that the pro tem Speaker has committed contempt by not adhering to the Supreme Court directions, a leading Constitutional expert (who did not want to be quoted) and senior advocates, P.P. Rao and Rajeev Dhavan, are of the view that he has not.

Mr. Nariman says that the action will amount to contempt of court. Whatever may be the reasons, he has not obeyed the order.

The contention that a pro tem Speaker cannot conduct the floor test is not correct. A Speaker is a Speaker for the moment. Therefore, once the court gives a direction, he has to obey it and not doing so will be contempt of court.

Mr. Vaidyanathan says that since there is a specific direction to the pro tem Speaker to conduct the floor test, the order should have been complied with. A leading lawyer, however, differs with them and says there is no contempt. It can well be said that the events were `planned' but even then it cannot be said that the pro tem Speaker committed contempt. He tried to conduct the proceedings but when things went beyond his control he adjourned the House. According to the lawyer, in the light of the strong resentment shown by political parties over the order, the Supreme Court may not take such a serious view of the Speaker's action.

`No contempt'

P.P. Rao says the pro tem Speaker held the session, wanted to conduct the proceedings but was not in a position to implement the order because of the disruption by the members. "So long as the action of the pro tem Speaker is bona fide, there is no contempt," he says. It must be noted that those members who spoke in the Assembly are immune from court proceedings and contempt will not lie against them. They will say that the apex court cannot regulate the proceedings of the House and therefore it is wrong to say that the pro tem Speaker committed contempt.

Rajeev Davan asserts that there is no contempt in adjourning the House. The legislators today wanted the Speaker to conduct the proceedings of the House as per the Rules of the Assembly and not as per the court order. According to the legislators the pro tem Speaker has a limited role of conducting the election of a Speaker and not to conduct the floor test. If the court on March 14 is to view today's developments as non-compliance of the order and issues contempt notice then "we are heading towards a possible clash between the Legislature and the Judiciary and this will mean a breakdown of the Constitution."

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National