As per case facts, the U.P. Legislative Assembly committed Keshav Singh, a non-member, to prison for contempt, issuing a warrant without stating the facts. Keshav Singh filed a Writ Petition ... with the Lucknow Bench of the High Court, challenging his committal and seeking bail. The High Court granted him bail. The Assembly then resolved that Keshav Singh, his Advocate, and the two Judges committed contempt by their actions and ordered their production in custody. Subsequently, the Judges and the Advocate filed Writ Petitions with the Allahabad High Court (Full Bench), which admitted their petitions and stayed the Assembly's resolution. The Assembly later modified its resolution, asking for explanations instead of custody. The question arose regarding the constitutional relationship between the High Court and the State Legislature, specifically concerning the scope of legislative privileges under Article 194(3), the power to commit for contempt by a general warrant, and the High Court's jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights under Articles 32, 226, and the non-discussability of judicial conduct under Article 211. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court was competent to entertain Keshav Singh's petition and grant bail, and that Keshav Singh, his Advocate, and the Judges did not commit contempt. It held that the Assembly was not competent to demand the custody or explanation of the Judges and Advocate for their judicial actions. The Court emphasized that the power claimed by the House to issue a conclusive general warrant for contempt by a non-member is inconsistent with the Constitution's provisions, particularly Articles 21, 32, 226, and 211, and that Indian State Legislatures do not possess the status of a superior court of record that historically justified such conclusive warrants in England.