The impugned notices suffered from serious errors and were set aside. The Court emphasized the need for reasonableness and transparency in administrative actions and highlighted the potential bias of the Privileges Committee and the Hon’ble Deputy Speaker.

JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer in W.P.No.13189 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorai calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Show Cause Notice No.10100/2017-9 SA.MA.PE.SAE (SA.MU.VA-3) dated 07.09.2020 issued by the second respondent, based on the reference dated 19.07.2017 in Serial No.9 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Bulletin No.37 dated 19.07.2017 made by the first respondent to the third respondent, and to quash the same.)

1. Whether the question of herd immunity will apply only to COVID-19 or even for the Members of the Legislative Assembly, which has cropped up at the right time.

2. The privilege is not knowing that you are hearing others and not listening, when they tell you - Dr.DaShanne Stokes.

3. Nineteen of the Members of the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly belonging to the opposition party, including the Leader of the Opposition, have challenged the Show Cause Notices dated 07.09.2020 (for the sake of brevity, “the SCN”) on the issue of breach of privilege calling upon them to furnish explanation. This is the second SCN issued to the petitioners by the second respondent on the same cause of action.

4. Earlier a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.24156 to 24176 of 2017 were filed seeking to quash the notices dated 28.08.2017 issued by the very same second respondent as per the directions of the third respondent, on the basis of the reference made by the first respondent, with respect to the alleged incident that took place on 19.07.2017, wherein, the Hon’ble First Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.08.2020, inter alia, held as follows:

“106. Having considered all the submissions raised and in view of what has been stated herein above, our conclusions are:

(i).The issuance of the impugned notice of breach of privilege dated 28.8.2017, based on the incident dated 19.7.2017, suffers from a foundational error of assuming the conduct of the petitioners to be prohibited by the notification dated 23.5.2017, and we hold accordingly. The petitioners cannot be proceeded against on the strength of the impugned notices dated 28.8.2017 by treating their conduct on 19.7.2017 of displaying Gutkha sachets and photographs as being violative of any prohibitory law particularly the Notification dated 23.5.2017.

(ii).Our conclusion aforesaid is confined only to the interpretation of the notification dated 23.5.2017 vis-a-vis the specific conduct of the petitioners inside the House that was made the basis for the issuance of notice of breach of privilege and is not to be construed as an interpretation regarding a prosecution or trial of any offence before a competent forum arising out of the notification dated 23.5.2017.

(iii).We leave it open to the Committee of Privileges, if it so chooses, to deliberate upon the issue any further in case it still is of the opinion that any breach has been committed of the privileges of the House by the petitioners and in that event, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all such objections that have been raised before us, or even otherwise available in law.

4.1. On the strength of Clause (iii) supra, the present impugned SCN dated 07.09.2020 have been issued. The said notices also called upon the petitioners to provide written explanation on or before 14.09.2020.

5. Based on the strength of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajaram Pal V. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184, the petitioners have moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution contending that the said notices are amenable to judicial review.

6. The SCN issued by the Privileges Committee was on the premise that the Gutkha, which is one of the prohibited items as per the Gazette Notification dated 23.05.2017, was brought into the Assembly by the petitioners, which amounted to breach of privilege.

7. Counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of the third respondent, wherein, it was stated that the third respondent had deliberate