2175

IN THE

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

IN THE MATTERS OF

SITA SOREN............................................................................PETITIONER

v.

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CBI.........................................RESPONDENT

[UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950]

ON BEHALF OF THE PETIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................5
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION............................................................................................7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................8
1.ARTICLE 194(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CONFERS COMPLETE
IMMUNITY UPON A PERSON FROM PROCEEDING IN ANY COURT IN RESPECT
OF VOTE GIVEN BY HIM IN THE LEGISLATURE.........................................................9
1.A. RECOGNITION OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES........................................
1.B. PARTICIPATING IN THE VOTING PROCESS IS AN ASPECT OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH....................................................................................................11
2.ARTICLE 105 IS AN ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS OF
THE PARLIAMENT...............................................................................................................12
2. A. IMMUNITY OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS.............................................................13
2.B. ARTICLE 105 IS IDENTICAL TO ARTICLE 194 OF THE CONSTITUTION..13
2.C. HISTORY OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES.................................................15
3. PRAYER FOR RELIEF......................................................................................................17

ii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji v. Punit Goala,..................................................................................11
Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly..........................................................................9, 14
IBID.................................................................................................................................................11
M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and others.....................................................................15
Raja ram pal vs speaker, Lok Sabha and Ors..................................................................................10
Tej Kiran Jain and others v. N Sanjeeva Reddy..............................................................................12
IBID.................................................................................................................................................15
Yitachu v. Union of India, (2008) 2 GLT 284..................................................................................11

Statutes
Article 105(2), the constitution of India, 1950.................................................................................13
Article 105(2), the constitution of India, 1950.................................................................................13
Article 105(3), the constitution of India, 1950.................................................................................15
Article 105(3), the constitution of India, 1950.................................................................................15
Article 105, the constitution of India, 1950.....................................................................................14
Article 19(1)(a), the constitution of India, 1950..............................................................................15
Article 194(2), the constitution of India, 1950...................................................................................9
Article 194(3), the constitution of India, 1950.................................................................................15
Article 194, the constitution of India, 1950...............................................................................11, 15
Article 208, the constitution of India, 1950.....................................................................................11
Article 211, the constitution of India, 1950.........................................................................10, 11, 14

iii
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner most humbly submits that this Honorable High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi has
the jurisdiction to hear the present matters of:

Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

All of which is urged in detail in the written submission and is submitted most respectfully.

iv
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The present case is about the tussle between the CBI and the petitioner, Sita Soren who’s
the member of Parliament.
2. The case revolves around the immunity given to the MLAs/MPs is justified or not?
3. Article 194(2) says that, “member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any
proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the
Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the
publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report,
paper, votes or proceedings.”
4. Issues are with reference to the Article 105 and Article 194 grant privileges or advantages
to the members of the parliament so that they can perform their duties or can function
properly without any hindrances. Such privileges are granted as they are needed for
democratic functioning. These powers, privileges and immunities should be defined by
the law from time-to-time. These privileges are considered as special provisions and have
an overriding effect in conflict.
5. Two Members of the Parliament, namely, Babu Lal Marandi and Dr. Ajay Kumar,
lodged a complaint on 27/03/2012, before the Chief Election Commissioner of India,
alleging therein that there is every possibility of the process of election being influenced
by the money power as some of the Members have indulged themselves in Horse
Trading. On getting this complaint, the Election Commission of India, on 27/03/2012,
alarmed all the departments including the Income Tax Department to check the menace of
Horse Trading and use of money power.
6. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against number of
accused persons, including this petitioner on the charge that the petitioner did receive
illegal gratification of Rs. 50 lakhs from R.K.Agarwal for proposing his nomination and
also Rs. 1 crore for voting in his favour, but the petitioner never voted in favour of
Agarwal. On submission of the charge sheet, the Court took cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 120B and 171 (E) of the Indian Penal Code and also
under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against
the petitioner and others vide order dated 07/06/2013, which is under challenge.
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the fact
that the petitioner has been charged to have received bribe for casting vote in favour of
R.K.Agarwal, she cannot be prosecuted criminally as the provision contained in Section

v
 194(2) of the Constitution of India confers immunity upon a person from proceeding in any
court in respect of vote given by him in the Legislature and, as such, any prosecution of the
petitioner is against the mandate of the Constitution.
8. Also, in this respect, learned senior counsel submits that the point involved in this case, has no
longer remained res integra on account of authoritative judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in a case of "P.V. Narsimha Rao- versus- State where number of Members of the Lok Sabha
had been alleged to have been bribed for voting against the no-confidence motion.
9. But by i n s e r t i o n o f Article 194(2) and Article 105 in the Indian constitution gave
special rights to MLAs and MPs which lead to an ongoing friction between MLAs/MPs
and CBI.

Hence, the present matter before this Honourable Court.

vi
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether Article 194(2) of the constitution of India confers complete immunity upon a
person from proceeding in any court in respect of vote given by him in the legislature?
2. Whether Article 105 is an absolute privilege given to the members of the parliament?

vii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. ARTICLE 194(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CONFERS COMPLETE

IMMUNITY UPON A PERSON FROM PROCEEDING IN ANY COURT IN RESPECT
OF VOTE GIVEN BY HIM IN THE LEGISLATURE.
No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect
of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no
person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such
a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.

II. ARTICLE 105 IS AN ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS OF

THE PARLIAMENT.
Freedom of speech and publication under parliamentary authority is defined under Article
105(1) and clause (2), that no member of parliament will be liable in any proceedings
before any Court for anything said or any vote given by him in the Parliament or any committee
thereof. It applies to the members of parliament not subjected to any reasonable restriction.

8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. ARTICLE 194(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CONFERS COMPLETE

IMMUNITY UPON A PERSON FROM PROCEEDING IN ANY COURT IN
RESPECT OF VOTE GIVEN BY HIM IN THE LEGISLATURE
The first issue is whether the Article 194(2)1 confers complete immunity upon a person from
proceeding in any court in respect of vote given by him in the legislature. It becomes imperative
to take notice of the provision as contained in Article 194 (2), which is in para materia of the
provision as contained in Sub-clause 2 of Article 105 of the Constitution. The provision as
contained in Article 194 (2) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Legislatures and of the members and committees
thereof. —
(1) ……………..(2) No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in
any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any
committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the
authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
Anything done, which had nexus with the vote will not make him liable to be proceeded in the
Court of law as provision under Article 105(2) gives complete immunity to those persons. Since
Article 194 (2) is in para materia of the provision as contained in Article 105 (2), the same would
be the fall out in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench and, thereby, the instant
prosecution can be said to be against the mandate of the constitutional provision and, hence, order
taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.

1. A. RECOGNITION OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

As regards "freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament", the Court in Special
Reference No. 1 of 1964 (Keshav Singh's case2) in paragraph no. 72 observed: -
"72. It would be relevant at this stage to mention broadly the main privileges which are claimed
by the House of Commons. Freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every legislature, and
that is claimed by both the Houses as a basic privilege. This privilege was from 1541 included by
established practice in the petition of the Commons to the King at the commencement of the
Parliament. It is remarkable that notwithstanding the repeated recognition of this privilege, the
Parliament, Crown and the Commons were not always agreed upon its limits. This privilege
1
Article 194(2), the constitution of India, 1950.
2
Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, (1965) AIR 1965 ALL 349
9
 received final statutory recognition after the Revolution of 1688. By the 9th Article of the Bill of
Rights, it was declared "that the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament,
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".

Mr. Seervai, one of the constitutional expert has argued that Article 194(2) expressly prohibit any
action against a member of the legislature for anything said or any vote given by him in the
legislature. In other words, if a member of the legislature contravenes the absolute prohibition
prescribed by Article 211, no action can be taken against him in a Court of law and that, says Mr.
Seervai, shows that the significance of the prohibition contained in Article 211 should not be
overrated. Besides, as a matter of construction, Mr. Seervai suggest that the failure to comply with
the prohibition contained in Article 2113 cannot lead to any Constitutional consequence.

Sir Thomas Erskine define the expression “Parliamentary Privilege” as the total sum of the
specific rights enjoyed by each House of Parliament collectively is a constituent part of
Parliament, and by the members of every house of Parliament one by one, without which they
could not proceed with their functions, and which exceed those possessed by different bodies and
people.

In case of Raja Ram Pal vs. Lok Sabha, speaker and ors. 4, they discussed that the Members of the
Constitution wanted Parliament (and State Legislatures) to retain power and privileges to take
appropriate action against any individual member for 'anything that has been done by him' which
may bring Parliament or Legislative Assembly into 'disgrace'.

According to constitutional experts’ opinion, it cannot be said that the Founding Fathers of the
Constitution were not aware or never intended to deal with individual misdeeds of members and
no action can be taken by the Legislature under Article 105 or 194 of the Constitution. An
authority on the 'Constitutional Law of India', (H.M. Seervai) pithily puts this principle in one
sentence; "It is clear, therefore, that the privileges of the British House of Commons were not
conferred on the Indian Legislatures in a fit of absent mindedness".

Now, I would like to refer to in particular the considerations weighed with the House in the speech
of Hon'ble the President, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who said; The privileges of Parliament extend, for

3
Article 211, the constitution of India, 1950
4
Raja ram pal vs speaker, Lok Sabha and Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 184
1
0
instance, to the rights of Parliament as against the public. Secondly, they also extend to rights as
against the individual members. For instance, under the House of Commons' power and privileges
it is open to Parliament to convict any citizen for contempt of Parliament and when such privilege
is exercised the jurisdiction of the court is ousted. That is an important privilege. Then again, it is
open to Parliament to take action against any individual member of Parliament for anything that
has been done by him which brings Parliament into disgrace.

1.B. PARTICIPATING IN THE VOTING PROCESS IS AN ASPECT OF

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The court in the case of Yitachu v. Union of India5 in paragraph no. 37 said,
It will be noticed that the first three material clauses of Article 194 deal with three different topics.
Clause (1) deals with, there shall be “freedom of Speech in the Legislature”.
It follows that the right of a member of a Legislature to participate in the voting process in the
Legislature is nothing, but an aspect of the freedom of speech of each of the legislator recognized
under Article 194 and, therefore, is subject to regulation, which, in our view, includes the
curtailment also. One definite provision of the Constitution curtailing such freedom of
speech/right to vote is under Article 211 6, which expressly prohibits any discussion, in the
Legislature, in respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or High Courts in the
discharge of his duties.
The Supreme Court also recognized in Keshav Singh Case7 (In re, Under Article 143, Constitution
of India), referred to earlier, that Article 2088 authorizes the freedom of speech, recognized under
Article 1949, to be regulated by the house of the Legislature of a State.

Applying similar logic the court in the case of Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji v. Punit Goal 10, the
para 9 says: - “Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 194 11 protect absolutely and completely a member in
respect of any speech made by him in the Legislative Assembly or in any committee of the
Legislature. His words spoken within the four walls of the Assembly are clearly absolutely
privileged and no proceedings either civil or criminal may be taken in respect of them. It is,
therefore, clear that Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji who made the speech in the Assembly
5
Yitachu v. Union of India, (2008) 2 GLT 284
6
Article 211, the constitution of India, 1950
7
Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, (1965) AIR All 349
8
Article 208, the constitution of India, 1950
9
Article 194, the constitution of India, 1950
10
Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji v. Punit Goala, (1951) AIR 1951 Cal 176
11
Article 194, the constitution of India, 1950
1
1
containing the alleged defamatory matter cannot be prosecuted for uttering the words complained
of in the Assembly. It is to be observed, however, that in the complaint it is not suggested that he
is liable in respect of the words spoken in the Assembly.”

2. ARTICLE 105 IS AN ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS

OF THE PARLIAMENT

Article 105 deals with Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members
and committees thereof.—
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating
the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.
(2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything
said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so
liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any
report, paper, votes or proceedings.

In the decision of the Hon’ble Court reported in Tej Kiran Jain and others v. N. Sanjiva Reddy
and others12 (bench of 6 Hon’ble Judges)-upholding a full bench decision (of 5 Hon’ble Judges)
of the High Court of Delhi; and declaring in (Paragraph 8): -

“The article (105) confers immunity under inter alia in respect of "anything said.........in
parliament". The word 'anything' is of the widest import and is equivalent to 'everything'. The
only limitation arises from the word 'in parliament ' which means during the sitting of
parliament and in the course of the business of parliament. We are concerned only with
speeches in Lok Sabha. Once it was proved that parliament was sitting and its business was
being transacted, anything said during the course of that business was immune from
proceedings in any court, this immunity is not only complete but is as it should be. It is of that
essence of parliamentary system of government that people’s representatives should be free to
express themselves without fear of legal consequences. What they said is only subject to the
discipline of the rules of parliament, the good sense of the members and the control of
proceedings by the speaker. The courts have no say in the matter and should really have none.”

12
Tej Kiran Jain and others v. N Sanjeeva Reddy, (1970) 2 SCC 272
1
2
Court is pleased to observe as follows: the object of the immunity conferred under Article
105(2)13 is to ensure the independence of the individual legislators. Such independence is
necessary for healthy functioning of the system of parliamentary democracy adopted in the
Constitution. Parliamentary democracy is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. An
interpretation of the provisions of Article 105(2)14 which would enable a Member of Parliament
to claim immunity from prosecution in a criminal court for an offence of bribery in connection
with anything said by him or a vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof and
thereby place such members above the law would not only be repugnant to healthy functioning
of parliamentary democracy but would also be subversive of the rule of law which is also an
essential part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It is settled law that in interpreting the
constitutional provisions the court should adopt a construction which strengthens the
foundational features and the basic structure of the Constitution.

2. A. IMMUNITY OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS

2.A.i. The present petition, as can be seen from the memo of parties, has been filed against the
houses of parliament. There is complete freedom of speech in the houses as guaranteed by Article
105 of the constitution of India. It is submitted that the right guaranteed under article 105 cannot
be abridged, curtailed, or called into question in any court of law. Any attempt to do so would
violate the sanctity of free parliament proceedings. Freedom of speech in the house is not subject
to restrictions placed under article 19(2) of the constitution.
2.A.ii. the proceedings of the house, as well as the officers of the house, immunity from being
proceeded against in any court of law, inter alia under Article 122(2) of the constitution. The only
restriction on free speech within the parliament is covered by article 121 of the constitution.

2.B. INFLICTING ISSUES BETWEEN PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES AND THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
The Fundamental Rights have been provided to every citizen of India, and the members of the
Parliament also have access to the rights enshrined under Part-III of the Constitution and enjoy the
privileges of the fundamental rights. According to Article-105, the members of the Parliament enjoy
absolute privileges with no restrictions in respect to their conduct or proceedings. These special
privileges have been assigned to the members of the Parliament to maintain the independence of action
and to facilitate free discussion and debate sessions in the Parliament. Article19(1)(a) guarantees
13
Article 105(2), the constitution of India, 1950
14
Article 105(2), the constitution of India, 1950
1
3
freedom of speech and expression to every citizen, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions
under Article 19(2). Though the right under Article 105 is independent and is not subject to restriction
under Article 19(2). Thus, it can be said that freedom of speech under Article 105 is different from the
freedom of speech under Article 19, which is subject to restriction. 

2.C. ABSOLUTE NATURE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH

While dealing with first three clauses of article 194 of the constitution (which are identical in the
substance to that of article 105 in its application to parliament), this court in Keshav Singh’s
case15 observed as under (specifically pointing out the 3rd clause): -

“Having confirmed freedom of speech on the legislators, clause (2) emphasizes the fact that the
said freedom is intended to be absolute and unfettered……..Similar freedom is guaranteed to the
legislators in respect of the votes they may give in the legislature or any committee
thereof……..In other words, even if a legislator exercises his right of freedom of speech in
violation, say, of article 21116, he would not be liable for any action in any court. Similarly,
if the legislator by his speech or vote, is alleged to have violated any of the fundamental
rights guaranteed by part third of Constitution in the legislative assembly, he would not be
answerable for the sad contravention in any court. If the impugned speech amounts to libel or
becomes actionable or Indic table under any other provision of the law, immunity has been
conferred on him from any action in any court by this clause. He may be answerable to the house
of such a speech and the speaker may take appropriate action against him in respect of it; but that
is another matter. It is plain that the Constitution makers attached so much importance to the
necessity of absolute freedom Independence within the legislative chambers that they thought it
necessary to confer complete immunity on the legislators from any action in any court in respect
of their speeches and the legislative chambers in the white terms prescribed by clause (2). Thus,
(1) Converse freedom of speech on the legislators within the legislative chambers and clause (2)
makes it plain that the freedom is literally absolute and unfettered.”

Similarly,

As against clauses (1) and (2) of article 10517 which guarantee "freedom of speech in Parliament
inverted, and correspondingly provide for complete immunity, the other privileges as per clause
(3) are those which shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law and
15
Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, (1965) AIR 1965 ALL 349
16
Article 211, the constitution of India, 1950
17
Article 105, the constitution of Inida, 1950
1
4
until so defined shall be those of that house and of its members and committees immediately
before coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978.
"Freedom of speech” in the house is considered so sacrosanct and a sensual for the very
functioning of the house that it finds specific mention with the immunity clearly specified. The
absolute nature of the house that it find specific mention with the immunity clearly specified.
The absolute nature of such freedom of speech weighed with this called in Tej Kiran Jain 18, when
a bench of six Hon’ble judges of this court held that the expression "anything” is of whitest
import and is equivalent to “everything” and that the only limitation arose from the expression
“in Parliament” which meant during the setting of Parliament and in the course of business of
Parliament.

In the case of M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha & Ors. 19, the petitioner, who was Editor
of English daily newspaper 'Searchlight' published unedited proceedings of the Assembly. The
Legislative Assembly issued a notice for violating privilege of the House and proposed to
take action. The petitioner challenged the proceedings inter alia contending that they were in
violation of fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) 20
read with right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Considering Article 194 21 [which is
parimateria to Article 105(3)22] of the Constitution, and referring to English Authorities, Das, CJ
observed (for the majority); The result of the foregoing discussion, therefore, is that the House of
Commons had at the commencement of our Constitution the power or privilege of prohibiting
the publication of even a true and faithful report of the debates or proceedings that take place
within the House. A fortiori the House had at the relevant time the power or privilege of
prohibiting the publication of an inaccurate or garbled version of such debates or proceedings.
The latter part of Art. 194(3)23 confers all these powers, privileges and immunities on the House
of the Legislature of the States, as Art. 105(3)24 does on the Houses of Parliament.

2.C. HISTORY OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

"Freedom of Speech or vote" in discussion and debates in the House, which was so statutorily
recognized by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights Act, 1688 in the United Kingdom, found expression

18
Tej Kiran Jain and others v. N. Sanjiva Reddy and others, (1970) AIR 1573
19
M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and others, (1959) Supp 806: AIR 1959 395
20
Article 19(1)(a), the constitution of India, 1950
21
Article 194, the constitution of India, 1950
22
Article 105(3), the constitution of India, 1950
23
Article 194(3), the constitution of India, 1950
24
Article 105(3), the constitution of India, 1950
1
5
in specific terms in sub-section (7) of Section 67 of the Government of India Act, 1915 which
declared, "Subject to the rules and standing orders affecting the chamber, there shall be freedom
of speech in both chambers of the Indian Legislature. No person shall be liable to any proceedings
in any court by reason of his speech or vote in either chamber .......".

Section 71 of the Government of India Act, 1935 dealt with "Privileges etc. of members of
Provincial Legislatures" and subsection (1) thereof provided:

"Subject to the provisions of this Act and to rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of
the Legislature, there shall be freedom of speech in every Provincial Legislature and no member
of the Legislature shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or
any vote given by him in the Legislature or any Committee thereof……”

Section 86(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 prohibited discussion in the Provincial
Legislature regarding the conduct of any Judge of the Federal Court or High Court in the
discharge of his duties while in terms of Section 87, the validity of any proceedings in a
Provincial Legislature could not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of
procedure. The Indian Independence Act, 1947 conferred sovereign legislative power on the
Indian Dominion Legislature. India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947, issued by the
Governor General of India on 14.08.1947 made large-scale amendments to the Government of
India Act, 1935, the important being Sections 28, 38, 40 and 41 which were brought into force
for the first time. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 28 were as under:

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules and standing orders regulating the
procedure of the Dominion Legislature there shall be freedom of speech in the Legislature, and
no member of the Legislature shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of
anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no
person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under authority of the Legislature of
any report, paper, votes or proceedings.

(2) In other respects, the privileges of members of the house Dominion Legislature and, until so
defined, shall be such as were immediately before the establishment of the dominion enjoyed by
members of the Indian legislature.

1
6
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand
(Ranchi), that it may be pleased to declare that –

1. The criminal prosecution launched against the appellant is sought to be nullified

on a claim of immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India.
2. Order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed

And further, grant any other relief or pass any order in favour of the Petitioner, which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the ends of justice and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted before this Court.

Date: 11th March, 2023 Counsel No. 2175

Place: Ranchi (Counsel for Petitioner)

1
7