Judgment

SINHA, C.J.I. : By this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner raised almost the same controversy as had been done in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1958, which was heard and determined by this Court by its judgment dated December 12, 1958. (AIR 1959 SC 395, M. S. M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha), and by Writ Petition No. 106 of 1959, which was heard by this Court on November 10, 11 and 12, 1959, but which did not reach the stage of judgment by this Court, inasmuch as the petitioner s Advocates requested the Court to permit him to withdraw the petition and the Court allowed the prayer and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition. In each of these petitions the petitioner, who is a journalist by profession and is functioning as the Editor of "the Searchlight", an English daily newspaper published from Patna in the State of Bihar impugned the validity of the proceedings before the Committee of Previleges and prayed for restraining the opposite party, namely, the Chief Minister of Bihar as Chairman of the Committee of Previleges, Bihar Legislative Assembly, Committee of Privileges and the Secretary of the Bihar Legislative Assembly, from proceeding against the petitioner for the publication in its issue dated May 31, 1957, of the Searchlight an account of the debate in the Legislative Assembly, Bihar, on May 30, 1957.

2. The facts of the case have been stated in great detail in the majority judgment of this Court delivered by S. R. Das, C. J., in M. S. M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395. In the opening paragraph of this Court s judgment aforesaid, the parties before the Court have been enumerated and the anomaly pointed out. This Court held in effect that under Art. 194 (3) of the Constitution a House of a Legislature of a State has the same powers, privileges and immunities as the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom had at the commencement of the Constitution. The House of Commons at the relevant date had the power or privilege of prohibiting the publication of even a true and faithful report of proceedings of the House and had a fortiori the power or privilege of prohibiting the publication of an inaccurate of garbled version of such debate or proceedings. The powers or privileges of a House of State Legislature are the same as those of the House of Commons in those matters until Parliament or a State Legislature, as the case may be, may by law define those powers or privileges. Until that event has happened the powers privileges and immunities of a House of Legislature of a State or of its members and committees are the same as those of the house of Commons at the date of commencement of our Constitution. This Court also expressed the view that Legislature in this country like the House of Commons will no doubt appreciate the benefit of publicity and will not exercise those powers, privileges and immunities, except in gross cases. The minority judgment delivered by Subba Rao J., on the other hand, expressed the view that at the relevant date the House of Commons, even as the Legislatures in this country, had no privilege to prevent the publication of a correct and faithful report of the proceedings of those Legislatures, except those of secret sessions, and had only a limited privilege to prevent mala fide publication of garbled, unfaithful or expunged reports of their proceedings. He also held that the petitioner had the fundamental right to publish the report of the proceedings to the Legislature. In the result, this Court, in view of the judgment of the majority, dismissed the petition, but made no order as to costs. This Court further held that the Assembly of Bihar was entitled to take proceedings for breach of its privileges and it was for the House itself of determine whether there had in fact been any breach of any of its privileges.

3. After Writ Petition No. 122 of 1958 had thus ended, the petitioner again moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution.