https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461089 Legislative control over disorderly conduct, breach of privilege, and the Speaker's measures to maintain order was treated as an internal matter protected by legislative privilege, so writ interference under Article 226 was not available. The constitutional bar under Article 20(2) was held inapplicable because it protects only against criminal prosecution and punishment for the same offence, not disciplinary action within the House; the Speaker's direction to withdraw and the later House resolution were therefore not invalid as double punishment. en-us Thu, 07 May 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:11:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461089 Legislative control over disorderly conduct, breach of privilege, and the Speaker's measures to maintain order was treated as an internal matter protected by legislative privilege, so writ interference under Article 226 was not available. The constitutional bar under Article 20(2) was held inapplicable because it protects only against criminal prosecution and punishment for the same offence, not disciplinary action within the House; the Speaker's direction to withdraw and the later House resolution were therefore not invalid as double punishment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 May 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461089