PANDIT M. S. M. SHARMA versus DR. SHREE KRISHNA SINHA AND OTHERS.

PANDIT M. S. M. SHARMA versus DR. SHREE KRISHNA SINHA AND OTHERS.

The previous judgment of the Supreme Court in [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 806 determined the same questions now raised; therefore, by the principles of res judicata, those questions cannot be reopened. The Assembly's power to conduct breach of privilege proceedings persists despite prorogation, and its internal procedures are not subject to challenge under Article 32 for irregularity. The petitioner has no fundamental right being infringed by the Legislature's actions in these proceedings.

Parties
Petitioner: Pandit M. S. M. Sharma; Respondents: Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 August 1960
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Parliamentary Privilege, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Legislative Procedure
Constitutional Law Res Judicata Parliamentary Privilege Freedom of Speech and Expression Legislative Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pandit M. S. M. Sharma

Petitioner

Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the privilege conferred by Article 194(3) of the Constitution is subject to the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the general principles of res judicata bar the petitioner from reopening questions already decided in an earlier writ petition
  3. 3 Whether the procedures of the Assembly or its Committees can be challenged under Article 32 for non-compliance with the rules of procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The previous judgment of the Supreme Court in [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 806 determined the same questions now raised; therefore, by the principles of res judicata, those questions cannot be reopened. The Assembly's power to conduct breach of privilege proceedings persists despite prorogation, and its internal procedures are not subject to challenge under Article 32 for irregularity. The petitioner has no fundamental right being infringed by the Legislature's actions in these proceedings.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed