Story of an interesting Reference of Keshav Singh by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution of India. (Special Reference 1 of 1964)

Illustration of Supreme Court of India By Studio Kaäla

The Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh committed one Keshav Singh, who was not one of its' members, to prison for its contempt.  Keshav Singh through his Advocate moved a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it stood then challenging his committal being in breach of his fundamental rights ; he also prayed for interim bail. The High Court (Lucknow Bench) through the then Justice Beg and Saghal JJ. ordered that Keshav Singh be released on bail.

The Legislative Assembly found  Keshav Singh and his Advocate in moving the High Court, and the two Judges of the High Court in entertaining the petition and granting bail had committed contempt , and passed a resolution that all of them be produced before it in custody. 

Thereupon the Judges and the Advocate  filed writ petitions before the High Court at Allahabad and a Full Bench of the High Court consisting of 28 Judges took up the matter on the same day and admitted the said petitions and  restrained the Speaker from issuing the warrant in pursuance of the direction of the House.

The Assembly then passed a clarificatory resolution which modified its earlier stand. Instead of being produced in custody, the Judges and the Advocate were asked to appear before the House and offer heir explanation.

Taking a note of the situation the President of India made a Reference under Art. 143(1) of the Constitution in which the whole dispute as to the constitutional relationship between the High Court and the State Legislative including the question whether on the facts of the case Keshav Singh his Advocate, and the two Judges, by their respective acts, were guilty of contempt of the State Legislature or not.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the reference by holding that in the  the High Court was competent to entertain the petition of Keshav Singh and to grant him bail pending disposal of his petition. Further held that no contempt of the U.P. Assembly was committed by Keshav Singh or his Advocate in moving the application under Art. 226, or by the High Court in entertaining the said petition.  It was competent for the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court to entertain and deal with the petitions of the said two Hon'ble Judges and the Advocate, and to pass interim orders restraining the Speaker of the U .P. Assembly and other respondents to the said petitions from implementing the aforesaid direction of the Assembly. A Judge of a High Court who entertains or deals with a petition challenging any order or decision of a Legislature imposing any penalty on the petitioner  or issuing any process against the petitioner for its contempt , or for the infringement of its privileges and immunities, or who passes any order on such petition, does not commit any contempt of the said Legislature.