Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (Keshav Singh's case)
Rule established
A House of the legislature may punish for contempt, but the existence and extent of a claimed privilege is justiciable. A House is not a court of record, so its general warrant does not enjoy the immunity of a warrant of the House of Commons. A person committed for contempt may invoke Article 226, and the House cannot punish a Judge for the discharge of his judicial functions.
Facts
- Keshav Singh, who was not a member of the House, published a pamphlet reflecting on a member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
- The Assembly found him guilty of breach of privilege and directed that he be reprimanded.
- His conduct at the reprimand was treated as a further contempt, and he was committed to prison for seven days.
- Through an advocate he presented a petition to the Allahabad High Court under Art.226 challenging the committal.
- Two Judges of the High Court granted him interim bail pending the hearing.
- The Assembly thereupon resolved that Keshav Singh, his advocate, and the two Judges be brought before it in custody for having committed contempt of the House.
Issue
- Whether the High Court was competent to entertain Keshav Singh's petition and grant interim relief; whether the Assembly could proceed against the Judges for their judicial acts; and how far a claim of privilege is open to examination by the courts.
Held
- The majority answered in substance against the Assembly. The High Court was competent to entertain the petition under Art.226 and to pass interim orders, since the question whether a privilege claimed actually exists, and whether the committal was within it, is a justiciable question. An Indian House, unlike the House of Commons, is not a court of record, and therefore cannot claim that its general warrant is conclusive and immune from scrutiny. The Assembly had no power to take action against the two Judges, because a Judge exercising judicial functions conferred by the Constitution cannot be guilty of contempt of the House for doing so, and Art.211 in any event forbids discussion of a Judge's conduct in the discharge of his duties. Sarkar J dissented in part, taking a wider view of the House's powers.
Ratio Decidendi
Privilege in India is conferred and bounded by the Constitution. Article 194(3) confers privileges but does not clothe a House with the attributes of a court of record, and it cannot be read as excluding the jurisdiction which Arts.226 and 32 confer on the courts in terms. The distinction is between the exercise of a privilege within the House, with which a court will not interfere, and the existence of the privilege, which the court must be able to determine, because otherwise the House could enlarge its own jurisdiction at will. As between the House and the judiciary, each derives its authority from the same Constitution, so neither can punish the other for performing the function the Constitution assigns to it.
How to use it in an exam
- The leading case on the conflict between privilege and judicial power. Cite it whenever a House purports to act against a Judge, an advocate, or a person seeking judicial relief.
- Learn the distinction between the existence of a privilege, which is justiciable, and its exercise within the House, which is not.
- Note the significance of the holding that a House is not a court of record: it is the reason the English practice of treating a general warrant as conclusive does not apply in India.
- Read with MSM Sharma v Sri Krishna Sinha 1959, which had indicated that privilege yields to Art.21; this case gives that indication practical effect by holding Art.226 available to a person committed for contempt.
- Read forward to Raja Ram Pal v Speaker Lok Sabha 2007, which set out the precise grounds on which the exercise of contempt power may be reviewed.
- The case is also a standard illustration of the advisory jurisdiction under Art.143 being used to resolve an inter-institutional crisis.
Source
Source: AIR 1965 SC 745; (1965) 1 SCR 413; advisory opinion on a Presidential reference under Art.143; Bench of seven Judges, Sarkar J dissenting in part; leading authority on the clash between privilege and judicial power; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.