Ranchi, Aug. 21: The Assembly blinked today and deferred a confrontation with the judiciary when it dropped plans to debate the alleged interference of the high court in the domain of the legislature.

But the retreat came with a rider. The Assembly would lodge formal protests with President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee.

The decision followed the advice of the advocate-general, A.K. Sinha, who attended the meeting of the Business Advisory Committee of the Legislative Assembly today. It would be unconstitutional, he warned, for the Assembly to debate on the conduct of high court judges in the discharge of their duty.

Article 211 of the Constitution, the advocate-general pointed out, specifically prohibits such a discussion in the legislature. A similar constitutional restriction on the judiciary is, however, conditional and limited, he pointed out.

But while accepting Sinha’s request to drop plans for a debate, members of the committee wanted him to convey their disappointment over the attitude of the judiciary. While the legislature has given due deference to the judiciary, the latter’s attitude towards the legislature, they said, cast doubts about the judiciary’s “real intentions”.

The committee eventually agreed to pass a resolution and apprise the President and the Lok Sabha Speaker of the “repeated violations” of Article 212 of the Constitution. The committee is due to hold another meeting soon to finalise the draft resolution and discuss how and when to place it before the House.

“We are not going to discuss the conduct of the judges in the House. But passing a resolution to apprise the President and Lok Sabha Speaker about the feelings of the House against the judiciary should not be a difficult job,” commented Assembly Speaker Inder Singh Namdhari.

The Assembly was upset after the high court questioned the constitutionality of Assembly committees set up to monitor functions of BAU and RIMS. Assembly committees generally report to the House their findings. But both these Assembly committees had been interfering in day-to-day administration of the two institutions, prompting the high court to make its observations.

Earlier, the Bar association spewed venom against the legislature and it even threatened to stop pleading government’s cases. Legislators, cutting across party lines, had demanded a special debate on the role of the high court, raising the spectre of an ugly spat between the two arms of the Constitution.

While the imminent confrontation appears to have been averted, it remains to be seen how long the truce lasts.