Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. : This is an appeal from the order, August 4, 1969, of a Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi, rejecting a plaint filed by the six appellants claiming a decree for Rs. 26,000 as damages for defamatory statements made by Shri Sanjiva Reddy (former Speaker of the Lok Sabha), Shri Y. B. Chavan (Home Minister) and three members of Parliament on the floor of the Lok Sabha during a Calling Attention Motion. The High Court held that no proceedings could be taken in a court of law in respect of what was said on the floor of Parliament in view of Art. 105 (2) of the Constitution. The High Court, however, certified the case as fit for appeal to this Court under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution and this appeal has been brought.

2. Notice of the lodgment of the appeal was issued to the respondents in due course but they have not appeared. The Union Government which joined, at its request, as a party in the High Court alone appeared through the Attorney General. We have not considered it necessary to hear the Union Government.

3. The facts of the case, in so far as they are relevant to our present purpose, may be briefly stated. The appellants claim to be the admirers and followers of Jagadguru Shankarachraya of Governdan Peeth, Puri. In March 1969 a World Hindu, Religious Conference was held at Patna. The Shankarachraya took part in it and is reported to have observed that untouchability was in harmony with the tenets of Hinduism and that no law could stand in its way and to have walked out when the National Anthem was played.

4. On April 2, 1969 Shri Narendra Kumar Salve, M. P. (Betul) moved a Calling Attention Motion in the Lok Sabha and gave particulars of the happening. A discussion followed and the respondents execrated the Shankaracharya. According to the appellants, the respondents.

"gave themselves up to the use of language which was more common-place than serious, more lax than dignified, more unparliamentary than sober and jokes and puns were bandied around the playful spree, and his Holiness Jagadguru Shankaracharya Ananta Shri Vibushit Swami Shri Niranjan Deva Teertha of Goverdhan Peeth, Puri, was made to appear as a leperous (sic) dog."

The appellants who hold the Shankaracharya in high esteem felt scandalised and brought the action for damages placing the damages at Rs. 26,000. The plaint was rejected as the High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

5. Article 105 of the Constitution, which defines the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament and its Members provides:

"105 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.

(2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.

(3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, and at the commencement of this Constitution.

(4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any Committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament."

6. The High Court held that in view of clause (2) of the Article no proceedings could lie in any court in respect of what was said by the respondents in Parliament and the plaint must therefore, be rejected.

7. Mr. Lekhi in arguing