2016 Supreme(SC) 995

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, CJI., R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju – Petitioner
Versus
The Lok Sabha & Anr. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.504 OF 2015
Decided On : 15-12-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
The expression "anything" being of widest import is equivalent to "everything", the only limitation arising from the expression "in Parliament" meaning “during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of business of Parliament”.
Only restriction on debates or discussion in the Houses of Parliament is in respect of the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties. Otherwise there is no restriction on what can be debated or discussed in Parliament.
The privilege of "freedom of speech in Parliament" is the privilege of Parliament in the first instance and then of its Members.
Action of legislature trespassing on fundamental rights of a citizen especially under Articles 20 or 21 would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. Writ petition would be maintainable.
In cases concerning breach of privilege or contempt of Parliament against non member crucial and fundamental aspect is whether the actions of the citizen had interfered with the functioning of the Houses.
The nature of petitioner’s remarks regarding Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose pertain to general public interest, therefore the Houses were within their jurisdiction to pass the resolutions.
Petitioner’s remarks being of public interest could well be discussed in the Houses.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 105 – "Freedom of speech in Parliament" is absolute and unfettered – Freedom of speech so conferred is subject only to such of the provisions of the Constitution which relate to regulation of procedure in Parliament – Clause (2) of Article 105 puts negatively what clause (1) states affirmatively – Both clauses must be read together – A vote, whether cast by voice or gesture is an extension of speech or a substitute for speech – What has been said and a vote that has been cast is protected by Article 105 – The protection is broad, being "in respect of" – The expression "anything" being of widest import is equivalent to "everything", the only limitation arising from the expression "in Parliament" meaning “during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of business of Parliament”. (Para 21, 22)

       (1970) 2 SCC 272; (1998) 4 SCC 626; (2007) 3 SCC 184; (1965) 1 SCR 413 – Relied upon

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 121 – Only restriction on debates or discussion in the Houses of Parliament is in respect of the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties – No restriction on what can be debated or discussed in Parliament. (Para 23, 35)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 105 – Parliamentary privileges – Fundamental rights of the House and of its individual Members constitute Parliamentary privileges – Rights absolutely necessary for the due execution of the powers of the Parliament – The privilege of "freedom of speech in Parliament" is the privilege of Parliament in the first instance and then of its Members. (Para 25, 28)

       Law Reports: (1995) 1 A.C. 321; Law Reports: (2001) 1 A.C. 395; (2007) 3 SCC 184 – Relied upon

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 105(3) – there is no foundation to the plea that a legislative body cannot be attributed jurisdictional error – Action of legislature trespassing on fundamental rights of a citizen especially under Articles 20 or 21 would be amenable to judicial scrutiny – Article 105(3) does not provide absolute immunity to the parliamentary proceedings – Therefore, the present writ petition challenging Resolutions passed by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha held maintainable. (Para 29, 30)

       (2007) 3 SCC 184 – Relied upon

       (e) Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(a) – Guarantees free speech and expression making no distinction between popular or dissenting expressions – Petitioner’s comments already available in public domain – His freedom of speech in publically expressing his views or propagating his ideas not in any manner curtailed or impaired or placed under any restriction. (Para 31)

       (f) Lok Sabha Rules – Rules Rules 222 to 228 and Rules 187 to 203, Rajya Sabha Rules – Breach of privilege or contempt of Parliament against non member – Crucial and fundamental aspect is whether the actions of the citizen had interfered with the functioning of the Houses. (Para 34)

       (1970) 2 SCC 272; (1998) 4 SCC 626 – Referred

       (g) Rajya Sabha Rules – Rule 156, 155 and 157 r/w Rules 171, 172 and 173 of Lok Sabha Rules – A resolution could relate to a matter of general public interest and it could be in the form of a declaration of opinion by Rajya Sabha but not referring to conduct or character of persons except in their official or public capacity – Instantly, both Houses passing Resolution condemning ‘recent remarks’ of the petitioner against Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose – Subject of condemnation by both the Houses being of the opinion and remarks, not referring to the conduct or character of the petitioner – The nature of remarks regarding Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose pertain to general public interest, therefore the Houses were within their jurisdiction to pass the resolutions. (Para 36, 39)

       (1993) 4 SCC 97; (2006) 7 SCC 1 – Referred

       (h) Constitution of India – Article 19(a) r/w Rule 156, 155 and 157 of Rajya Sabha Rules and Rules 171, 172 and 173 of Lok Sabha Rules – Petitioner entitled to his views and putting those views in public domain for consumption of public in general – However, the remarks being of public interest could well be discussed in the Houses – Further, the resolutions having no civil consequences in so far as the conduct and character of the petitioner is concerned – Present resolutions not inflicting any penalty or visiting the petitioner with any civil consequences. (Para 37)

       2006 QCCA 775 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       On 10.03.2015, the petitioner, a former Judge of this Court published a post on his Facebook Page in respect of Mahatma Gandhi, Father of the Nation. The post was entitled "Gandhi - A British Agent" and stated that Mahatma Gandhi did great harm to India. On the same date, another post was published by the petitioner on his Facebook Page in respect of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose referring to him as an agent of Japanese fascism.

       These posts evoked immediate response and on 11.03.2015, discussion took place in Rajya Sabha. At the end of the discussion, a Resolution was moved by the Chairman of Rajya Sabha which was passed unanimously by the House.

       On the next day, discussion also took place in Lok Sabha whereafter a similar Resolution was passed by Lok Sabha on 12.03.2015.

       On 23.03.2015, the petitioner sent e-mails to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha and to the Speaker, Lok Sabha that the aforesaid Resolutions condemning his statements on Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were passed by Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha without giving him any opportunity of hearing and that rules of Natural Justice required that he should have been given an opportunity of hearing.

       Since the petitioner did not receive any response from either the Chairman, Rajya Sabha or the Speaker, Lok Sabha, he has filed the present petition.

       Finding of the Court;

       There is no merit in the petition.

       Result: Petition dismissed.