- (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. The said Article authorises the President to refer to this Court questions of law or fact which appear to him to have arisen or are likely to arise and which are of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon them. Article 143 (1) provides that when such questions are referred to this Court by the President, the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon. In his order of reference made on the 26/03/1964, the President has expressed his conclusion that the questions of law set out in order of reference are of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient that the opinion of the Supreme Court of India should be obtained thereon.
(2.) It appears that on the 14/03/1964, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh administered, in the name of and under the orders of the said Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as "the House'') , 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 because of a pamphlet which was printed and published and which bore the signature of Keshav Singh along with the signatures of other persons. In pursuance of the decision taken by the House later on the same day, the Speaker directed that the said 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 said Jail.
(3.) On the 19/03/1964, 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 S. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as well as under Article 226 of the Constitution. To this petition were impleaded the Speaker of the House, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and the Superintendent of the District Jail, Lucknow where Keshav Singh was serving the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the House, as respondents 1 to 4 respectively. The petition thus presented on behalf of Keshav Singh alleged that his detention in jail was illegal on several grounds. According to the petition, Keshav Singh had been ordered to be imprisoned after the reprimand had been administered to him, and that made the order of imprisonment illegal and without authority. The petition further alleged that Keshav Singh had not been given an opportunity to defend himself and that his detention was mala fide and was against the principles of natural justice, it was also his case that respondents 1 to 3 had no authority to send him to the District Jail, Lucknow and that made his detention in jail illegal.;