Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) IF this writ petition is considered on the merits of it, then, logically, a rule or a writ, order or direction would issue to a member of Parliament and, in effect, the Rajya Sabha of Parliament. The Court is considering this writ petition as on the date it was brought; such is also the law. Rameshwar v. Jot Ram, AIR 1976 SC 49. The matter has been urged strenuously by learned counsel for the petitioner. When this matter was brought into the Court, the petition was also sought to be amended by inserting certain submissions into the text of the petition as also the prayer and the relief clause. The record which is before the Court as of now, the prayer and the relief clause reads as under: "Prayer It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to : A To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the entire statement made by respondent No. 1 on or about 10.3.94 against the "Father of Nation" Mahatma Gandhi and published in different newspapers and magazines of the country, which is also shown in Annexure No. I and II to this petition. A1. To issue order or direction declaring respondent No. 1 Ms. Mayawati as mad (lunatic) and debarring her membership of Rajya Sabha on the basis of statement made by her : and as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 of the writ petition. B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued thereby' commanding over respondent No. 5, to initiate the proceedings of expulsion and accusation to the guilt of Ms. Mayawati respondent No. 1. C. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued thereby commanding over respondent No. 5 and directing them to bring legislation with regard to "the Father of Nation" in the same spirit as "the national flag" and "the national Anthem" and the offence be made cognizable, non-bailable and not compoundable. D. Any other suitable writ order or direction be also issued in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. E. Costs of the petition be awarded."
(2.) PLAINLY, what the petitioner desires is that a direction be issued to a Member of Parliament, a Member of Rajya Sabha, with a declaration that such Member be declared to be suffering from mental infirmity and further, the Court should by a writ declare that this Member of Parliament is as a consequence of this alleged insanity, debarred from her seat at the Rajya Sabha. The question before the Court is not so much as/or the High Court to issue a writ on the petition but whether such a petition ought to be brought before the High Court and whether under the circumstances, a prerogative writ of the nature sought by the petitioner can be issued under the Constitution? The concern of the Court is that if it were to issue a writ or a rule. As the petitioner so seeks and desires, what is there to stop those where the writ will reach from issuing a like writ to the High Court? The Parliament is also vested with the power of Court. Counsel for the petitioner also sought an adjournment to submit further on this petition in detail. The court has denied the adjournment by plainly telling counsel that this is a matter which ought to see result and should not remain lingering on the records of the High Court.
(3.) THIS is also not a matter either on facts or otherwise of considering even remotely on a writ of quo warranto that a public office has been usurped either by violating the rule of law or the law of the Constitution. This Court is not going to discuss the merits of submissions already on record of the writ petition. But for the brevity of it so that the context of this writ petition remains in sight, the averments, as made in the writ petition are summarised : "Petitioners Kunwar Abhay and another state that they have filed this writ petition in the public interest because, they and the entire country are "grief-striken" at abuses against the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, said to have been uttered by the respondent, Ms. Mayawati, at a press briefing in March 1994, which were widely reported. The petitioners point out that the Father of the Nation is remembered and respected both in India and abroad, and his memory deserves as much respect as the national flag or national anthem. By her statements, the petitioners aver, can be the words of "a mad man only" and after the date when they were uttered (March 9, 1994) an abnormal state has arisen in the country because of the remarks. Petitioners also state that the Union of India and State Governments are "abetters" in this as they remained idle and took no action against Ms. Mayawati, and this recourse to the relevant criminal law provisions cannot be sufficient to meet the case and the power of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be called into play.;