- (1.) The petitioners in W.P.No.10175/2013, are the appellants and challenging the vires of the Resolution dated 26.3.2013, passed in the House of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, by and under which, they have been suspended for a period of six months and the salary and other allowances during that period, have been withheld, filed the above said writ petition and it was dismissed on 5.6.2013. The writ petitioners aggrieved by the said order, had filed this writ appeal.
(2.) Background FACTS: 2.1.The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition have been narrated in detail, in the order passed in the writ petition, and therefore, it is not necessary to restate the entire facts except to briefly state certain facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal. 2.2.The appellants/writ petitioners, who are six in number, belong to Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) and they are Members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from May, 2011, and represent the respective Constituency, from where, they got elected. 2.3.The first appellant is the Whip of the Party and the party, in which, he belongs, is declared as the "Opposition Party" in the Legislature and in the Assembly Election held during May, 2011, 29 members belonging to the said Party, were elected as Members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (MLAs), out of which, 4 without resigning from the Party, started behaving independently with an intention to cause split to the political party viz. DMDK. One such member viz. Thiru. Tamilalazhagan, got elected from the Thitakudi Constituency and 3 others viz. Thiru. Michael Rayappan, Thiru. R.Sundarajan and Thiru. Arunpandiyan, without getting permission from the Whip of the party viz. the first appellant herein, but with the permission of the Speaker, who according to the appellants herein, was carrying on colourable exercise of power, started making statements in support of the Ruling Party and also made threatening statements against the members of the DMDK Party and their activities caused disturbance and discomfort in the minds of the other Members of the said Party and they have also agitated. 2.4.On 8.3.2013, the provocation was passed by Mr.Tamilalazhagan and other MLAs viz. Tvl. Michael Rayappan, R.Sundarajan and Arunpandiyan, and they were ably supported by the MLAs belonging to the Ruling Party, and in this regard, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly by invoking Rule 226 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, had referred the matter alleging breach of privilege, to the Privilege Committee for the purpose of investigation and submission of report. The MLAs viz. The appellants herein, along with Tvl. Parthiban, Sekar and Muthukumar were also said to have been involved in the alleged breach of privilege. 2.5.According to the appellants, the Privilege Committee has conducted proceedings without issuing any notice to the appellants herein and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, fair play and good conscience, gave its report stating that the appellants are guilty of breach of privilege. As per the majority opinion of the Privilege Committee, it was recommended that the appellants, who had indulged in acts of assaulting a Member inside the house, have to be suspended for a period of one year and during that period, are also not eligible to receive salary and other allowances and the said report dated 21.3.2013, was placed before the Assembly and was put to vote and by majority, it was accepted. 2.6.The Hon'ble Speaker of the Assembly announced that as per the Resolution passed, the appellants have been suspended from the Assembly for a period of one year from that date and during that period, are ineligible to receive salary and other allowances. On 26.3.2013, the Leaders of the other Political Parties made a request for remission of the suspension period and the Hon'ble Chief Minister, taking into consideration the said plea, recommended that the period of punishment is to be reduced to six months. Once again, a resolution was moved, wherein, it has been resolved to reduce the punishment to six months and it was further resolved that during that period, they were ineligible to receive salary and other allowances, etc. The appellants challenging the vires of the said resolution, filed the writ petition. 2.7.The second respondent has filed the counter stating among other things, that one Mr.K.Tamilalagan, MLA, belonging to DMDK Party, was speaking inside the Floor of the Assembly with the permission of the Speaker and intimidation was made and attempts were made to physically assault and Mr.Michael Royappan, MLA, also belonging to DMDK Party, who sought to intervene, was assaulted and the said unruly incident happened in full view of the House in the presence of MLAs, media persons and other visitors, who had seen the same from the galleries, and though it was open to the House to pass a resolution, suspending them and to withhold their salary and other benefits, the Speaker did not do so and by acting in a fair and unbiased manner, referred the issue to the Privilege Committee consisting of members from all political parties. 2.8.It is further stated in the counter, that on the same date, on which the incident took place, i.e., 8.2.2013, the first appellant had given his written explanation with regard to his version, to the Hon'ble Speaker of the Assembly and it was also signed by other members belonging to the said Political Party. Thiru. Michael Royappen, MLA, belonging to the same Party, had also given his version/explanation with regard to the incident and both the representations were also taken into consideration by the Privilege Committee. 2.9.The second respondent further stated that since the Assembly proceedings are covered through videos also, the video footage was viewed by the members including Thiru.Parthiban, and thereafter, it has been decided to proceed only against the appellants, who were involved in such a kind of activity inside the Floor of the House. 2.10.It is further stated in the counter, that the principles of natural justice have been followed strictly and the explanation given by the first appellant and countersigned by other MLAs, was also taken into consideration and the Privilege Committee by majority opinion, has found that the appellants are guilty of breach of privilege and recommended the punishment for one year suspension with withholding of salary and other benefits and it was also placed before the House and was put to vote and the House has also by a majority opinion, accepted the report submitted by the Privilege Committee, and imposed the punishment as recommended and thereafter, the Leaders belonging to the political parties, made a request for remission of the punishment and the Hon'ble Chief Minister, taking into consideration the sentiments expressed by the Leaders of various political parties, suggested that the period of punishment may be reduced to six months and it was once again, put to vote and it was passed. 2.11.Insofar as the legal issues raised by the appellants/writ petitioners, the second respondent submitted that all the legal issues have been considered and answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported (RAJA RAM PAL V. HON BLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA AND OTHERS, 2007 3 SCC 184) and the decisions of this Court reported (A.K.BOSE V. TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHENNAI,2008 2 LW 1001) and in (VIJAYAKANT V. TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AND OTEHRS, 2012 3 CTC 449) and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
(3.) Findings RENDERED IN THE WRIT PETITION: 3.1.The learned Single Judge has formulated the following questions for consideration: "a) Whether the entire proceedings are vitiated and are liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice? b) Whether the State Legislature has the power and privilege under Article 194 to suspend the writ petitioners? c) If the answer is affirmative for question number (b) then, whether the writ petitioners could be suspended for more than 60 days in the light of Article 190 (4) of the Constitution of India? d) Whether the privilege is restricted to what happened inside the four walls of the Assembly and whether it can travel outside the Assembly? e) Whether the Legislative Assembly has the power to suspend the salary and other benefits of a Member including their right to vote in the Rajya Sabha in the capacity of a Member of the Assembly?" 3.2.The learned Single Judge, after exhaustive analysis of the factual aspects and legal position, held as follows: (a) The learned Single Judge answered Question No.(a) in the following manner: (i) The writ petitioners/appellants are not able to show how they have been seriously prejudiced and affected by not issuing a notice to them, getting their explanation, giving a report and thereafter, passing the order. (ii) Though some principles of natural justice have been followed, if not in its entirety, the same have not vitiated the proceedings and further, an opportunity of representing their case was availed by the writ petitioners themselves and their case was very well articulated by their own Member (Thiru. Parthiban) in the Privileges Committee. (iii) The appellants/writ petitioners have not established as to the prejudice caused to them, on account of non-supply of copies of the report to the other Members of the Assembly. (b) The learned Single Judge while answering Question No.(b), has taken into consideration the decision in Raja Ram Pal's case , and the decision reported (AMARINDER SINGH V. SPECIAL COMMITTEE, PUNJAB VIDHAN SABHA AND OTHERS, 2010 6 SCC 113) and held that the State Legislature has the power and privilege under Article 194(3) of the Constitution of India to suspend the writ petitioners. (c) The learned Single Judge on Question No.(c), held that the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners, that suspending a Member for more than 60 days would be ultra vires of Article 190(4) of the Constitution of India is farfetched and misconceived and gave a finding that the State Legislature has power and privilege to suspend a Member for more than 60 days and it does not in any way offend Article 190(4) of the Constitution of India. (d) The learned Single Judge while answering Question Nos.(d) and (e), has taken into consideration the decision Vijaykant's case and held that denial of salary and other privileges like voting in an election, are not constitutional rights nor the fundamental rights and in such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that their rights are affected and consequently, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3.3.The learned Single Judge in the light of the reasons assigned, both on facts and in law, has held that the questions/issues raised by the writ petitioners, were already answered in the above cited judgments and there are no merits in their contentions and hence, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 5.6.2013, and challenge is made by filing this writ appeal.;