Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

I. Manilal Singh Alias M.Manihar Singh Vs. Union of India [1993] INSC 145 (23 March 1993)
1993 Latest Caselaw 143 SC

Citation : 1993 Latest Caselaw 143 SC
Judgement Date : Mar/1993

    
Headnote :
We have listened to Shri K.K. Venugopal, the esteemed senior counsel representing Dr. H. Borobabu Singh, regarding the two applications submitted. Given the mandatory terms of the previous order dated February 5, 1993, which required the Union Government to ensure Dr. Singh\'s presence in Court today, we should not have allowed any interference with those proceedings. However, due to Shri K.K. Venugopal\'s passionate request for a hearing on these applications, we have listened to him extensively and considered his arguments. In light of the qualified position expressed in the applications and affidavit, we believe it is inappropriate to disrupt the execution of the earlier order. We express this with the utmost respect for Dr. Borobabu Singh\'s esteemed role as Speaker of the Assembly. However, it must be emphasized that the proceedings against Dr. Singh are not in his capacity as Speaker, but in a different context. It is unfortunate that Dr. Singh has created this situation through his ongoing defiance of this Court\'s jurisdiction and authority, which is indeed regrettable.
 

I. Manilal Singh Alias M. Manihar Singh Vs. Union of India [1993] INSC 145 (23 March 1993)

Venkatachalliah, M.N.(Cj) Venkatachalliah, M.N.(Cj) Yogeshwar Dayal (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J) Agrawal, S.C. (J)

CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 728 1993 SCALE (2)456

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

ORDER

1.We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, for Dr H. Borobabu Singh, in support of the two applications that have been made. In view of the peremptory terms of the earlier order dated February 5, 1993 requiring the Union Government to secure the presence of Dr Singh in Court today, we should not have permitted any interception of those steps. However, on the impassioned plea of Shri K.K. Venugopal, who sought an audience on these two applications, we have heard him at length. We have considered his submissions. Having regard to the qualified stand made manifest in the applications and affidavit, we do not think that we should interrupt the course of the execution of the earlier order. This we say with due respect to the high office, Dr Borobabu Singh otherwise holds as a Speaker of the Assembly. But, as has been made clear in the earlier orders, it is not in Dr Singh's capacity as Speaker of the House as such that Dr Singh is being proceeded against, but in a different capacity. It is unfortunate that Dr Singh has, by his own persistent stand of defiance of the jurisdiction and authority of this Court, brought this situation. This is, indeed, regrettable.

2.But this Court must maintain its dignity and authority.

It is in this spirit that we direct the execution of the earlier order dated February 5, 1993 and the production of Dr Singh before this Court.

3.Now that Dr Borobabu Singh has, in his affidavit stated, that if we refuse his prayer for exemption, he is willing to appear before us, we appreciate the stand of Dr Singh and expect him to, be present in Court at 2.00 p.m.

4. Call at 2.00 p.m.

Court Masters ORDER AT 2 P.m. ON MARCH 23, 1993

The contempt proceedings are dropped.

 

Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter