Chhattisgarh High Court
WP/2404/2001 of ANIL CHOUBEY Vs DHARAMJEET SINGH and ORS. on 26 November 2001
COURT OF CHHATTISGAH AT BILASPUR [WRIT JumsmCTlom PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION NO. 2&0 Z OF 2001 IN xHE MATTER 0F: .nAnH Chaubey, Aged 45 years,” S/o Late Sri DP. Chaubey, Editor, Rastriya Hindi Mail, Daga Building, Shiv Das Daga Road, Civii Lines, Raipur, (CG) VERSUS 1. Sri
IN THE HIGH[COURT][ OF][ CHHATTISGAH][ AT][ BILASPUR]
[WRIT[JumsmCTlom]PUBLIC[INTEREST][ PETITION][ NO.][ 2&0]Z[OF][ 2001]
IN xHE[MATTER][ 0F:]
.nAnH Chaubey,[Aged][ 45]years,”S/o Late[Sri][ DP.][ Chaubey,]Editor,Rastriya[Hindi][ Mail,]Daga[Building,]Shiv Das[Daga][ Road,]Civii Lines,[Raipur,](CG)
VERSUS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Sri DharamjeetSingh,Member[of][ Legislative][ Assembly][ and]Chairperson (Sabhapaii)_inquiry[Committee][ of][ Chhattisgarh][ Vidhan]Sabha[on][ irregularities][ in]purchase[ of]Furniture[for][ S.C.,][ S.T,,][ O.B.C.][ And][ Minority][ Welfare][ Department],Vidhanaabha,Ralpur (CG).State of[Chhattishgarh,]Through:[Secretary,]
S.C.,[S.T.,][O.B.C.][ and][ Minority][ Welfare][ Department,]Secretariat,RespondentsRaipur (CG)
To,The Chief Justice[and][ His]Companion Justices[of][ the]Hon’ble[High][ Court][ of]hattisgarh[at][ Bilaspur]
.x
Writ Petition[N¢]).2404;200 1'26— 1 1—200 1g‘VPetitioner by Siiri[Mukesh][ Sl]tarma, Advocate.State by D1‘.N.K.[Shuida,][ D61]1uty Advocate General.VHeard.Jpetitionstyled as Public[Inteiest]The[petitioner][ has][ fEled][ thi$]‘ Litigation chalhngingtlmlegQity1validityaimpropn'etyofthe.raport da’md 0308—2001submitte (i by[the][ Committee][ constituted]by VldhcmSabha of Chhattlsgarl[ 1]for enquilingintotheallegedAn‘regularxty1nthematmrofS111)plyof furnituretotheTribal‘A:gWelfaroDepartmentStateof Chi 1attisgarh.The Committee waS‘Mwwwaconstituted by[three]persons[whereas][ the]petitioner[has][ joiloea][ Shm]n.,DharmjsetSingh,MambcrofL egislativeAssemblyandChaira.Person of the[Comnnttce][ alonc]Wm.“;Ar=V'-Learned Deputy[Advocate]G1eneijal appearing[for][ the][ State][ of]y_n4gu‘_..;é‘miuw.._.y.vChhatti§garhpointedoutthatWritPetitionsNo.71524f2001,1922/2001[and]1692/2001[were,]filed by individuals[challenging]rthe legahty, vahd1t§[and]propuetsof the same report[for][ which‘the];wq-.m‘_w_.‘.‘,.k...nrstmtrpetmorr styledeas[Pnbhewinaaerest][ ungaaeauhasmbeen‘éued»]
safeguards and protectsthe said freedom conferring immunity onthe members fromliability in reapeci of anything said or any votegiven[by][ him][ in]Parliament or inany Commiitee thereofThisisInecessary because for a regulatorybody like Parh‘ameni thefreedomand freedebateisoftheessenceof speechisofutmost theimponance and fut} and free deba te is of the essenceagof speech inParliamentaiy democracy,In Eng and this freedom of speech anddebates or proceedingsin. any Court or placeout of Pariiamené”confersimmunityinrespect of speech,debateor proceedingsinPariiameni being quesiioned in anyCourt or place oui of ParliamentThe said immunity has been constr Jed to preciude what was said ordonein. Parliament in the courseof proceedingsthere fonn beingexamined outsidethe Parliament for the purpose of supporting acause of action even thought the cause of action itself arose out ofsomething done ouiside the Parliam em,[”]This Court in the order dated 29-10-20011'11 Para 9 has heldthat[“in]view of the facts and circumstances of the case and keepingin viewthe faci that the matierissifiil under considerazion of thegovernmeni[and]theVidhan Sabhc:we are of the opinion ihat the-powers,‘giivi'legesaetc,conferred,‘uponthelegislatureandthemembers of the Legislative Assemlily, hasto be consirued in theirproper perspective.”\mam\
;[summing,][ mu]
XE-HC-ZZ
‘3[/][ 1/]
_ W m