IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.

OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

Foundation for Restoration of National
Values (FRNV)
Having its registered office at
M-75 Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi 110 048
Through its Chief Executive Officer

Petitioner

Respondents

versus
1.

Union of India
Through the Cabinet Secretary
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi

2.

Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs

Through its Secretary
Parliament House
New Delhi

3.

Lok Sabha Secretariat

Through its Secretary General
Parliament House
New Delhi

4.

Rajya Sabha Secretariat

Through its Secretary General
Parliament House
New Delhi

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR APPROPRIATE
DIRECTIONS AND GUIDELINES TO ENSURE
THAT THE PARLIAMENT OF INDIA, IN THE
DISCHARGE

OF

ITS

LEGISLATIVE

AND

REPRESENTATIVE

RESPONSIBILITIES,

FUNCTIONS

DISRUPTIONS

WITHOUT

IMPEDIMENTS,

TO

ENSURE

&

&

UPHOLD

DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES, AS ENSHRINED IN

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE

32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR APPROPRIATE

DIRECTIONS

ENSURING

REALIZATION

OF

PROTECTION

FUNDAMENTAL

&

RIGHTS

GUARANTEED TO CITIZENS & THE PEOPLE OF

INDIA UNDER ARTICLES 19(1)(a) AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WHICH ARE BEING
VIOLATED
BEING

ON

ACCOUNT

STALLED,

UNREASONABLY

OF PARLIAMENT

AND

ITS

&

UNJUSTIFIABLY

OBSTRUCTED

SITTINGS

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

A PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 32 & 142 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR APPROPRIATE
DIRECTIONS TO ENSURE THAT COLLOSAL
AMOUNTS OF PUBLIC MONEY ARE NOT WASTED
ON ACCOUNT OF DISRUPTION OF PARLIAMENT,
AND TO SAFEGUARD PUBLIC INTEREST, TRUST
&

FAITH,

WHICH

STANDS

COMPLETELY

ERODED ON ACCOUNT OF PARLIAMENTARY

SESSIONS BEING REGULARLY, CONSISTENLY &
UNJUSTIFIABLY DISRUPTED, CONTRARY TO
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME & PRINCIPLES

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

To,
The Honble the Chief Justice of India and
his companion Judges of the Honble Supreme Court of India

The instant petition on behalf of the petitioner abovenamed,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1.

That, the instant writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution

of India, has been preferred by the Foundation for Restoration of

National Values, a society registered on 9.6.2008 under the Societies
Registration Act 1860, bearing registration no. S/62441/2008, by the
Registrar of Societies, Government of NCT of Delhi, through its Chief
Executive Officer Ms Anupama Jha, who is duly authorised to file the
petition on behalf of the said Foundation (copy of the Certificate of
Registration of the petitioner Society is filed along with the
vakalatnama).

The instant writ petition seeks to raise an issue of profound

public interest and national importance, namely the smooth,
unobstructed and unhindered functioning of the Parliament of India,
which has been severely affected and disrupted in the current monsoon
session (21 July to 13 August), as also in the past, thus gravely
affecting the public and national interest, which is contrary to, and in
violation of the principles, precepts and rights enshrined and
guaranteed in the Constitution of India.

1A. That, the petitioner herein has not approached any other authority
or department for similar relief, and the instant writ petition is the first
petition filed in this Honble Court by the petitioner.

2.

That, the petitioner herein, Foundation for Restoration of

National Values, is a non-profit society registered under the provisions

of the Societies Registration Act 1860, functioning as a nongovernmental organization, which was founded by eminent citizens of
India to instill the national bonds of cultural values and cohesion in
society that would ensure the fulfillment of the goals, objectives and
exalted principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. The petitioner
society works tirelessly to restore our time-tested National, and
Cultural values, in order that people, individually and collectively, find
an abiding inner persuasion to be truthful, ethical, patriotic and
committed to serving the greater good.
The petitioner society is provided inspiration and spiritual
guidance by Swami Bhoomananda Tirtha, and its Advisory Board
comprises Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, Sri Ratan N. Tata, Dr. E.
Sreedharan, Sri N. Vittal, Sri T.S.

Krishnamurthy and Smt. Vibha

Parthasarathi, all of whom have impeccable credentials and widely

recognized acumen in their respective areas of human endeavour and
enterprise. Several more people, all known for their personal
commitment to transparency, ethics and good governance support the
Foundation for Restoration of National Values. All of them are
unequivocal in expressing their eagerness for beneficial change in the
way we administer ourselves.

A copy of the Memorandum of Association of the Foundation for

Restoration of National Values is filed herewith as ANNEXURE P-1
(pages

3.

to

That, the Foundation for Restoration of National Values, the

petitioner herein, is concerned with the deterioration in the standards of

governance in India and the commensurate inability of the State to
abide by the commitments and principles enshrined in our Constitution.
The fact that governance is indeed on the decline, is borne by the fact
that numerous Committees and Commissions appointed by the
Government of India, have, over the years, pointed to systemic and
other lapses that are still in need of urgent remedy. The Foundation,
committed as it is to the welfare of the people of India, is deeply
concerned that any further lack of action on part of the State to redress
the lapses, will gravely hinder its ability to adhere to its Constitutional
obligations. There is, accordingly, the urgent and pressing need to
improve the overall structures, systems, skills, styles, policies and
procedures needed for good governance, with a robust, wholesome and
socially responsible administration, while simultaneously imbuing in
those responsible for public administration, a deeper understanding of
their responsibility to further the welfare of the people of our country.

4.

That, the petitioner herein has raised other issues of public

importance in this Honble Court by filing Writ Petition (C) no.

302/2012, wherein the issue relating to wasteful and unjustified
expenditure by the Central and State Governments in issuing full page
advertisements in national and regional newspapers, seeking to
highlight and eulogize nationally their achievements in office and
progress of public projects, which inevitably burdens the public
exchequer with several hundred crores of rupees, has been raised. The
said writ petition has been decided by this Honble Court vide
judgment dated 13.5.2015, whereby a slew of directions have been
issued by this Honble Court under Article 142 of the Constitution,
governing the issuance of public advertisements by the Central and
State Governments.

The petitioner society had also filed an intervention application in

Writ Petition (C) no. 82 of 2011 in this Honble Court, in regard to
improvement in the quality of governance in the country, particularly
the civil services and reforms in relation thereto. This Honble Court
has since decided the said case, wherein by judgment dated 31.10.2013,
a number of directions have been issued in respect of administrative
functioning and reforms.

The petitioner society has also filed Writ Petition (C) no. 823 of
2011 in this Honble Court, in the aftermath of the tragedy and colossal
loss of human lives and property in Uttarakhand in June 2013, seeking
appropriate directions to the Central and State Governments for
effective

and

total

implementation

of

the

National

Disaster

Management Law, being the Disaster Management Act 2005, and to put
in place a world class, highly functional and responsive disaster
management mechanism, to avert and deal with such tragedies and
national disasters. The said writ petition is pending in this Honble
Court.

5.

That, on the subject of the smooth and unhindered functioning of

Parliament, in order to discharge its legislative and representative

responsibilities, as also to ensure that the executive performs its duties
satisfactorily, and to oversee government revenue and expenditure, as
envisaged in the Constitution and in keeping with the high standards of
Parliamentary Democracy, without unreasonable disruption and violent
obstruction from its constituents, it may be stated that over the years in
successive parliamentary sessions, the primary responsibility of
Parliament to function, debate and legislate, has been adversely and
gravely affected, thus resulting in severe loss of parliamentary time and
public money, as would be apparent from the following figures relating

to the last six Lok Sabha sessions, thereby resulting in the loss of
thousands of crores of public money, with each minute of running
Parliament during sessions costing on an average Rs. 2.5 lacs, and each
minute of stalling proceedings in Parliament imposing a needless
burden of almost 30,000 on the public exchequer:
Lok Sabha Session

Years

Time Lost
Hrs Mins

Percentage

10

1991-96

279 25

10%

11

1996-97

45

20

5.3%

12

1998-99

68

37

10.7%

13

1999-2004

454 38

18.9%

14

2004-09

423 -

20%

15

2009-14

891 51

40%

Total Time Lost

2162 51

In this regard, a copy of the Publication dated September 2014 by

the Lok Sabha Secretariat, entitled Time spent on various Business in
Lok Sabha an Analysis, is filed herewith as ANNEXURE P-2
(pages

6.

to

That, it may be stated that the working of the 15 th Lok Sabha over

its five year term was disrupted frequently, making the productivity of
the 15th Lok Sabha to be the worst in the last fifty years. Disruptions

during the term of the 15th Lok Sabha, resulted in the Lok Sabha
working for 61% and the Rajya Sabha for 66% of its scheduled time,
according to a credible in-depth research and study by PRS Legislative
Search.
A copy of the Research Article dated 21.2.2014 titled
Performance of Parliament during the 15th Lok Sabha by PRS
Legislative
(pages

7.

Research,
to

is filed herewith as

ANNEXURE P-3

That, currently the monsoon session of Parliament has been

convened from 21 July to August 13, 2015, wherein the legislative

agenda includes 11 legislative bills currently pending in Parliament for
consideration and the introduction of 9 new bills, which include
important legislations such as the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, rehabilitation and Resettlement
(Second Amendment) Bill 2015 and the Constitution (122 nd
Amendment) Goods & Services Tax (GST) Bill 2014, among others.
A copy of the Agenda dated 21.7.2015 in the Monsoon Session of
Parliament, compiled by PRS Legislative Research, is filed herewith
as ANNEXURE P-4 (pages

8.

to

That, however, Parliament has been facing disruptions and

10

adjournments at the behest of some of the opposition parties since 22

July, which still continue unabated, despite certain measures, thus
resulting in Parliamentary business relating to matters of national and
public importance, remaining inconclusive and pending.

9.

That, it is thus apparent that successive Parliamentary sessions,

including the present monsoon session, have been unreasonably stalled

for days together by its own members, owing to which the functioning
of Parliament and the conduct of legislative business is seriously
affected, thus gravely affecting the national and public interest, and
such disruptions which are inconsistent with democratic norms and
Constitutional principles, have earned Parliament of India the dubious
reputation of being a place for adjournments, disruptions and ruckus,
rather than for debates and discourses for suitable legislations to serve
the country and its people well.

10.

That, it is relevant to state that Parliament comes into existence

through the due process of election under the Representation of the

People Act 1950, with the sole objective of discussing and deliberating
important and urgent affairs of the States and the Nation, with a view to
pass emergent and long-term legislations enjoining duties, obligations
and lawful restrictions on citizens, as well as to provide legitimate

11

rights and freedom to individuals, families and groups in the various

walks of life. As such, even a minute of inaction, obstruction or refusal
to act within Parliament, for realization of the said objectives as an
elected representative, is not only unlawful but also in contravention to
the very purpose for which Parliament is constituted and functions
under the Constitution. As a logical corollary, the members assemble in
Parliament or in Assemblies only to transact their business, and in such
a dispensation, on any ground whatsoever, no member has a right to
disrupt or stall the session under any pretext whatsoever. Any contrary
conduct on the part of the elected, which would have the effect of
stalling Parliament sessions, would be impermissible and contrary to
Constitutional tenets and the public and national interest, which cannot
be justified in any manner.

11.

That, it may also be stated that Parliament, being a law making

body, and its members, cannot by the definition of law, equity and
propriety, avail of any privilege for illegal physical force or action
which the members commit, especially to disrupt the proceedings of the
House indefinitely. Such acts, under any circumstances, cannot have
any lawful sanction or immunity, and which in no manner would fall
within the parameters of Articles 105 (3), 118 & 122 (1) of the
Constitution of India, regarding being had to the national and public

12

interest mandated on Parliament by the Constitution of India. The said

provisions do not, and cannot obviously refer to or include the act of
members in stalling Parliamentary proceedings, by physically moving
from the seats and barging into the well of the House, or obstructing the
members or the presiding officers. Stalling and obstructing the
proceedings of Parliament cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, be
regarded as acceptable and legal Parliamentary procedure, which is
akin to cessation of Parliamentary activity itself and death of the very
institution. Stalling and obstruction of Parliamentary proceedings
would not fall within the acceptable parameters of dissent and censure.

12.

That, in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and the

United States, stalling of Parliamentary business by obstruction is not

acceptable. In the United States, members of the Congress enjoy
parliamentary privilege, including freedom from arrest in all cases
except for treason, felony and breach of the peace. However,
obstructing the work of Congress is a crime under federal law and is
known as contempt of Congress. Each branch has the power to cite
individuals for contempt, but can only issue a contempt citation, with
the judicial system pursuing the matter like a normal criminal case, and
in case convicted, any individual found guilty of contempt of Congress
may be imprisoned for up to one year.

13

13.

That, it may further be stated that the Ethics Committees

constituted by each of the Houses of Parliament have singularly failed

in containing or limiting obstructionist and unruly behavior, which has
the result of stalling Parliamentary proceedings, and hence in the
entirety of the circumstances relating to the issue at hand, the adverse
effect on the national and public interest, and negation of democratic
and Constitutional principles with a non-functional Parliament due to
obstruction and stalling thereof by its own members, emergent judicial
intervention by this Honble Court, to restore public faith and
credibility in the institution of Parliament, is expedient and necessary,
for which appropriate directions under Article 142 of the Constitution
are warranted in law and in the public interest by this Honble Court.

14.

That, the petitioner has not filed any other similar petition

involving the same issue before this Honble Court, and/or before any
High Court.

15.

That, the petitioner society has filed the present writ petition on

the following amongst other grounds, without prejudice to one other,

and also to the averments and submissions made in the foregoing
paragraphs of this petition.

14

GROUNDS

A.

Because the present writ petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India, which has been preferred by the
Foundation for Restoration of National Values, seeks to raise an
issue of profound public interest and national importance,
relating to the smooth, unobstructed and unhindered functioning
of the citadel of Indian democracy, namely the Parliament of
India.

B.

Because this venerated institution, the uninterrupted working of

which forms the core of our Constitutional scheme, and the life
blood of Parliamentary democracy in this country, has been
facing

severe

disruptions

in

its

functioning

from

the

representatives of the people, thereby gravely affecting the public

and national interest, sullying the name and reputation of this
august institution, and resulting in crores of public money being
wasted on unproductive and marred sittings of Parliament.

C.

Because it is a matter of grave concern for the public at large, and

for all right thinking Indians that the current monsoon session of
Parliament (21 July to 13 August), has remained paralysed and

15

largely dysfunctional by sustained disruptions, unruly protests

and abstinence by its elected constituents, thus gravely belying
and eroding the faith and trust reposed in them by the electorate
of India. Resultantly, several important bills and legislative
measures have not seen the light of day, and the stalemate
continues unabated.

D.

Because the present scenario and crisis, which is almost like

history repeating itself time and again, with a beleaguered
Parliament, one of the most venerated, cherished and coveted
symbols of our Parliamentary democracy, unable to rid itself of
the malaise of disruptions and interruptions by its own
constituents, is a matter of grave national concern, which has
brought this great institution and its pivotal role in a democracy,
into disrepute, ridicule and public outcry.

E.

Because the nature and manner of disruptions, which are wholly

unacceptable in a civilized society, neither reflect dissent or
censure, but criminal intimidation, unreasonable obstruction and
breach of the public trust and faith, which ordinarily and
otherwise would constitute offences punishable by law.

16

F.

Because what is unlawful outside for the public at large, cannot

be lawful inside Parliament or constitute any justification, or
grant immunity to behaviour which otherwise constitutes an
offence, such as obstructing, hindering and stalling Parliamentary
proceedings, and which adversely affect the national and public
interest.

G.

Because it is apparent that Parliament by itself is unlikely to take

any effective or lasting measures for preventing and disallowing
the disruption and stalling of proceedings, since disruptions are
caused by those sitting in the opposition benches, which position
in a democracy is liable to change in the next election, with
different political parties perpetuating the same malaise, and as
such, the issue and malady of disruption and violent/unruly
obstruction has cropped up in successive Parliament sessions, and
is continuing unabated, to the grave detriment of the national
interest, public good and the exchequer, thus requiring remedial
measures, norms and guidelines by this Honble Court.

H.

Because the present imbroglio and emergent state of affairs

relating to the smooth functioning of Parliament, which is an
integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, through
which fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and

17

21 of the Constitution are realized, however, where legislative

matters and debates of national and public importance have been
sacrificed at the altar of the whims, dictates and unreasonable
aggression of elected representatives, by stalling the smooth
functioning of Parliament, thus jeopardizing and defeating the
trust and faith of those they have sworn to represent, apart from
defying and violating Constitutional principles and precepts, has
necessitated urgent intervention of this Honble Court under
Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India.

I.

Because the present writ petition is filed in public interest and

seeks to raise an issue of paramount public interest relating to
effective functioning of the pillar of democracy in India, namely
the Parliament of India.

J.

Because this Honble Court has issued directions in the nature of

mandamus through guidelines, where even no statutory
framework existed. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1
SCC 226, it was observed as under:
It is the duty of the executive to fill the vacuum by
executive orders because its field is co-terminous with that
of the legislature, and where there is inaction even by the
executive for whatever reason, the judiciary must step in, in

18

exercise of its constitutional obligations under the aforesaid

provisions to provide a solution till such time as the
legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper
legislation to cover the field. (para 52)

K.

Because this Honble Court has issued similar guidelines in

several cases where there was no statutory framework.

In

Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244,

guidelines for adoption of minor children by foreigners were laid
down.

In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241,

guidelines were laid down to set up a mechanism to address the

issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. In Vineet Narain v.
Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226, directions were issued to
ensure the independence of the Vigilance Commission. This
Honble Court issued guidelines to maintain the independence of
the judiciary in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC.
In Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC
584, guidelines were issued for disbursement of amounts in
compensation. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of
Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406, guidelines were laid down to be
followed in case of arrest and detention of a judicial officer. In
Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 1 SCC 753, directions
were issued for revamping the system of blood banks in the

19

country.

This Honble Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-

Record Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441 laid

down guidelines and norms for the appointment and transfer of
High Court Judges. In Vishwa Jagriti Mission v. Central
Government (2001) 6 SCC 577 guidelines were laid down to curb
ragging in educational institutions. Recently, in Destruction of
Public and Private Properties v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 5
SCC 212, detailed guidelines were issued to assess damage to
public property during demonstrations and for the effective
implementation of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of
Property Act. In 2010, this Honble Court directed the Central
Government to set up an Armed Forces Grievances Redressal
Commission to

look into grievances by serving or former

members of the armed forces or their widows or family members

and also to frame and recommend to the Central Government, a
scheme for the proper rehabilitation of ex-armed forces personnel
who retired at a relatively young age.

This Honble Court laid

down in detail the composition, terms, and seat of this

Commission.

L.

Because the unjustified, unreasonable and sustained disruption of

Parliamentary proceedings, besides being detrimental to the
national and public interest, poses a grave threat to the unity,

20

strength and solidarity of the Nation, with Parliament rendering

itself powerless to conduct its own business, due to physical
resistance and opposition of its members, which may undermine
the morale of the Nation and encourage divisive and inimical
elements.

M.

Because successive Parliamentary sessions, including the present

monsoon session, have been unreasonably stalled for days
together by its own members, owing to which the functioning of
Parliament and the conduct of legislative business is seriously
affected, thus gravely affecting the national and public interest,
and such disruptions which are inconsistent with democratic
norms and Constitutional principles, have earned Parliament of
India the dubious reputation of being a place for adjournments,
disruptions and ruckus, rather than for debates and discourses for
suitable legislations to serve the country and its people well.

N.

Because Article 32 of the Constitution read with Article 142 of

the Constitution of India empower this Honble Court to issue
any such directions as may be necessary to do complete justice in
the matter and in the larger public interest, particularly in a
situation where institutions, principles and precepts in the

21

Constitution

of

India

have

been

derogated

by

public

functionaries.

P R AY E R

WHEREFORE, in the light of the facts and circumstances

outlined in the present writ petition, the petitioner herein respectfully
prays that this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to

(i)

issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

laying down guidelines to ensure that the Parliament of India
functions without disruptions and impediments from its
members, in the discharge of its legislative and representative
responsibilities;

(ii)

issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

laying down guidelines to ensure that the public at large and
the public exchequer are not adversely affected on account of
Parliamentary
unjustifiably

proceedings
obstructed,

constituents; and

22

being

unreasonably

and

stalled and disrupted by its

(iii) pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

DRAWN & FILED BY:

New Delhi
Dated: 12.8.2015

(RAVI PRAKASH MEHROTRA)

Advocate for the Petitioner

(Filed vide Diary no. 26864/15)

23