NEW DELHI: A Constitutional crisis appeared to be on the cards with the government impounding the passport of the Manipur assembly Speaker, Dr.H. Bombabu Singh, and the latter indicating that the privileges committee of the House might institute contempt proceedings against the Supreme Court judges.

Dr.Singh’s passport was impounded for his “failure” to comply with a Supreme Court directive asking him to undertake to personally appear during contempt proceedings before the court on October 20. He was to attend a conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) in Bahamas, recently, but had cancelled his foreign visit.

Reacting to the government action, Dr.Singh told newspersons here that it was “totally unjustified, unwarranted and arbitrary” since he had already cancelled his foreign tour. He was informed of the action through a letter from the ministry of external affairs which stated that the action was being taken as he had failed to comply with the September 25 directive of the Supreme Court.

The court had directed him to indicate in writing to the Union home secretary that he would be present in the court on October 20. government to “take necessary steps” in advance to ensure his compliance with the order. The RBI, on the advice of the finance ministry, had also withdrawn his permit for drawing foreign exchange for attending the conference.

According to Dr.Singh, the action was “very serious.” He warned of a constitutional crisis since it was “affront” to the institution of the Speaker and indeed to the democratic system itself. He clarified that he had no intention of flouting any order of the Supreme Court, but to appear in court as Speaker would amount to insulting the state assembly and also the people of the state.

What will happen if the privileges committee passes resolution seeking contempt proceedings against the Supreme Court judges,” he asked and indicated that the issue was heading for a constitutional crisis. Dr.Singh said he had informed the Lok Sabha Speaker, Shivraj Latil, that he was unable to appear in person in the court in view of the resolution passed by the conference of presiding officers that a Speaker should not appear before a court of law.

Article extracted from this publication >> October 16, 1992