1. Member of State Legislature published disallowed questions in a journal — Prosecution for defamation under Section 500, Indian Penal Code — Claim of absolute privilege under Article 194. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
16th January, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh, Appellant
Versus
Hari Sadhan Mukherjee and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. Arun Kumar Datta and D. N. Mukherjee, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; M/s. K. B. Bagchi and S. N. Mukherjee, Advocates, for Respondents.
Advocates:
ARUN DUTTA, D.N.MUKHERJI, K.B.BAGCHI, N.C.CHATTERJI, S.N.MUKHERJEE
ARUN DUTTA, D.N.MUKHERJI, K.B.BAGCHI, N.C.CHATTERJI, S.N.MUKHERJEE
Members of a State Legislature possess absolute privilege for speeches and votes within the House, but no absolute privilege for publishing extracts or disallowed questions in the press outside the House unless authorized by the House.
Headnote:(A) Constitution - Article 194 - Privileges and immunities of members of State Legislature - Publication of disallowed questions in a journal - Whether such publication is protected by absolute privilege. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) Article 194(2) - Protection against proceedings for anything said or any vote given in the Legislature - Does not extend to publication of such matters outside the House unless authorized by the House. (Para 4)
(C) Article 194(3) - Privileges of the parliamentary body referenced in the Constitution - Absolute privilege exists for speeches made within the House, but only qualified privilege exists for publication of such speeches in the public press. Publication of extracts or partial reports with intent to injure is not absolutely privileged. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
An elected member of a State Legislative Assembly sought to ask questions in the House, which were disallowed by the Speaker. The member subsequently published these disallowed questions in a local journal. A public servant, who was the subject of the questions, filed a criminal complaint for defamation under the penal code. The member claimed absolute privilege and immunity from prosecution under the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the publication was not under the authority of the House and did not constitute "anything said" within the Legislature. Following the legal position of the referenced parliamentary body, the court held that no absolute privilege attaches to the publication of extracts from proceedings outside the House.
Issues: Whether the publication of questions disallowed by the Speaker by a member of the Legislative Assembly in a journal is protected by absolute privilege under Article 194 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: Absolute privilege for members of the Legislature is limited to speeches made and votes given within the House. Publication of such proceedings outside the House, unless authorized by the House, does not enjoy absolute privilege and is subject to the law of defamation, mirroring the legal position of the referenced parliamentary body.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether disallowed questions form part of legislative proceedings and whether Article 194 provides absolute privilege for members publishing such questions to inform the public. (Para 3 )
3. Absolute privilege under Article 194 covers speech within the House but not separate publication of extracts in the press, following the House of Commons precedent. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Members of a State Legislature possess absolute privilege for speeches within the House, but only qualified privilege for publishing extracts of such speeches in the public press. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Prosecution under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, allowed to proceed. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Does Article 194 of the Constitution provide absolute privilege for the publication of legislative proceedings in the press?
No. Absolute privilege under Article 194(2) applies to anything said or any vote given within the Legislature. Publication of reports or proceedings is only protected if done under the authority of the House. (Para 4 )
7. What is the legal position regarding a member's privilege when publishing their own speeches made in the House?
Following the House of Commons precedent, a member has absolute privilege for speeches made within the House, but only qualified privilege when causing those speeches to be published in the public press. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Does the publication of a partial or garbled report of legislative proceedings attract protection?
No. Similar to court reports, a garbled or partial report, or detached parts of proceedings published with intent to injure individuals, is disentitled to protection. (Para 6 )
Judgment
SINHA, C.J.I. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, dated April 11, 1956, whereby the appellant s claim of absolute privilege as a member of the Bengal Legislative Assembly was rejected and the prosecution launched against him under S. 500, Indian Penal Code, was allowed to proceed.
2. The facts of this case are not in doubt or dispute and may shortly be stated as follows. The appellant is a citizen of India and an elected member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. He is also a medical practitioner at Chetal in the Midnapore District of West Bengal. In January 1954, the appellant gave notice of his intention to ask certain questions in the Assembly. Those questions were disallowed in accordance with the rules of procedure for the conduct of business of the Assembly. In February 1954, the appellant was informed that the questions proposed by him had been disallowed. The appellant published the questions that had been disallowed in a local journal called "Janamat", in its issue of February 28, 1955. In July 1955, the first respondent whose conduct formed the subject-matter of the question and who was then functioning as a Sub-divisional Magistrate, filed a complaint against the appellant and two others, the editor, and the printer and publisher respectively of the journal aforesaid. The petition of complaint alleged that the appellant had made and published scandalous imputations against him intending them to be read by members of the public, that those imputations were false and unfounded and had been made with the definite intention of harming or with the knowledge of having reason to believe that they would harm the reputation of the complainant and that the complainant felt greatly aggrieved and harmed in mind and reputation. He also alleged that being Government servant, the complainant had to obtain the necessary permission from the Government for instituting legal proceedings for the vindication of his character as a public servant and that accounted for the delay in filing the petition of compliant. The petition of complaint charged the appellant with an offence under S. 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the second and third accused, who have been cited as respondents 2 and 3 in this Court, under S. 501 of the Indian Penal Code. After several adjournments the petitioner raised, by way of preliminary objection to the criminal prosecution, the question of his absolute privilege and immunity from prosecution under the provision of the Constitution. The learned Magistrate by his order dated October 11, 1955, overruled the objection and held that the privilege claimed by the accused was not an unqualified one. He relied on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee v. Punit Goala, 55 Cal WN 745 in support of his conclusion that the first accused before him, now appellant was not entitled to the privilege and immunity claimed by him. Thereafter, the appellant moved the High Court under Art. 228 of the Constitution for having the case withdrawn to the High Court for determination of the constitutional question raised by him by way of defence, but that application was dismissed by a Bench of the High Court on November 9, 1955, presumably on the ground that the case did not involve any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Not daunted by the adverse order aforesaid of the Bench of the High Court, the petitioner again moved the High Court and obtained a rule on several grounds including the question of the proceedings being barred by the provisions of Art. 194 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge, who dealt with the case on this occasion, noticed the position that strictly speaking the constitutional question could not be allowed to be reagitated in view of the Bench decision aforesaid. But the learned Judge all the same dealt with the points raised by the ap
