2018 Supreme(SC) 460

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.K. SIKRI, A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Kalpana Mehta and others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 558 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 921 OF 2013
Decided on : 09-05-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
Parliamentary democracy in India is qualitatively distinct from the UK.
Parliamentary Standing Committee report can be taken aid of for the purpose of interpretation of a statutory provision as also for existence of a historical fact.
Judicial notice can be taken of the Parliamentary Standing Committee report under Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act and it is admissible under Section 74 of the said Act.
In a litigation filed either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee can be taken on record. However, the report cannot be impinged or challenged in a court of law.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee report being in the public domain can invite fair comments and criticism from the citizens as in such a situation, the citizens do not really comment upon any member of the Parliament to invite the hazard of violation of parliamentary privilege.
Reliance can be placed upon the report of a Parliamentary Standing Committee in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution;
Once the report of a Parliamentary Committee has been published, reference to it in the course of judicial proceedings will not constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege;
Validity of the report of a Parliamentary Committee cannot be called into question in the court. No Member of Parliament or person can be made liable for what is stated in the course of the proceedings before a Parliamentary Committee or for a vote tendered or given.
A finding of fact by the court must be premised on the evidence adduced in the judicial proceeding.
No Member of Parliament can be held liable for anything said by him in Parliament or in any committee. The reports submitted by Members of Parliament is also fully covered by protection.
The course of proceedings of Parliament and the Legislature are facts of which judicial notice shall be taken by the Court.
There is no requirement of any permission of Speaker of Lok Sabha for producing public documents as evidence in Court.
That mere fact that document is admissible in evidence does not lead to draw any presumption that the contents of the documents are also true and correct.
No party can be allowed to 'question' or 'impeach' report of Parliamentary Committee.
The Constitution does not envisage supremacy of any of the three organs of the State. But, functioning of all the three organs is controlled by the Constitution. Wherever, interaction and deliberations among the three organs have been envisaged, a delicate balance and mutual respect are contemplated. All the three organs have to strive to achieve the constitutional goal set out for 'We the People'. Mutual harmony and respect have to be maintained by all the three organs to serve the Constitution under which we all live.
Fair comments on report of the Parliamentary Committee are fully protected under the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
Admissibility of a Parliamentary Committee Report in evidence does not mean that facts stated in the Report stand proved.

Headnote:Per Deepak Misra CJI [For himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.]

       (a) Interpretation of Constitution – Constitution, being a living and organic document, should never be construed narrowly keeping in view the growing jurisprudence – However requisite balance has to be struck wherever necessary. (Para 1)

       (b) Constitutional law – Constitutional supremacy or constitutional sovereignty and Parliamentary supremacy – Distinction – Parliament has exclusive authority in field of legislation – Constitution is source of all laws and all authorities – Suprema lex – Supreme Court final interpreter of Constitution – Articles 14, 19 and 21 form basis of judicial review apart from the rule of law and separation of powers – Doctrine of constitutional sovereignty binds all three wings of the State – All are governed by the framework of the Constitution No transgression of constitutional supremacy is permitted. (Para 13, 14, 15, 16)

       AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) 4 SCC 225; (1977) 3 SCC 592; (2007) 2 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (c) Constitutional limitation – Constitutionally permissible legislative action – Creating legislative powers affirmatively and restricting these negatively – Separation of powers – Colourable legislation – Transgressing constitutional limitations – have to be declared ultra vires. (Para 17, 18, 20)

       1952 SCR 284 : AIR 1952 SC 75; 1954 SCR 1 : AIR 1953 SC 375; 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 8 : AIR 1959 SC 648; (2017) 7 SCC 59 – Relied upon

       (1878) LR 5 I.A. 178; (1912) AC 571 – Referred

       (d) Constitutional law – Doctrine of separation of powers – Basic structure of Constitution – Court cannot mandate the executive or the legislature to initiate legislation – However, a strict separation is neither possible nor desirable – An overlap is not strictly prohibited but an exercise of function of other wing resulting in wresting away of the regime of constitutional accountability is certainly prohibited. (Para 22, 23, 24)

       1975 Supp. SCC 1; AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) 4 SCC 225; (1985) 3 SCC 169; (2014) 12 SCC 696; (2010) 5 SCC 538; AIR 1997 SC 3400 : (1997) 7 SCC 622; (2003) 4 SCC 289 : AIR 2003 SC 1344; AIR 2004 SC 4264 – Relied upon

       (e) Constitutional law – Judicial review – Exercise of powers by legislature and executive – Subject to judicial restraint – Only check on exercise of power by the judiciary – Self imposed discipline of judicial restraint – Concept of constitutional limitation – A facet of doctrine of separation of powers. (Para 26, 27)

       AIR 1989 SC 1899; (2007) 2 SCC 1; AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) 4 SCC 225; 1975 Supp. SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (f) Constitutional law – Judicial Review – Not unfettered – Comes within conception of judicial restraint – Court cannot issue directions to legislature to make any particular kind of enactment – Judicial restraint however should not amount to judicial abdication and judicial passivism. (Para 30, 33)

       (1989) 2 SCC 754; (2007) 8 SCC 279; (2005) 13 SCC 287; (1989) 4 SCC 187; (2015) 2 SCC 796; (1994) 2 SCC 691; (1997) 7 SCC 592; (2011) 7 SCC 639; (1998) 4 SCC 117; AIR 1954 SC 447 – Relied upon

       (g) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Heart of the Constitution – Constitutional Courts duty bound to secure the inalienable fundamental rights of individuals. (Para 35)

       AIR 1958 SC 419 – Relied upon

       (h) Interpretation of Constitution – Duty of Supreme Court – No provision, no word or expression, of the Constitution exists in isolation – They are necessarily related to, transforming and, in turn, being transformed by other provisions, words and phrases in the Constitution – Doctrine of flexibility – Interpretative process has now become expansive – Broadening the sphere of rights and asserting constitutional supremacy to meet legitimate expectations of the citizens – Interpretation of Constitution cannot be frozen by its original understanding – Process of Constitutional interpretation gas two facets – Process of creation and discovery. (Para 37, 38, 39, 40)

       (1994) 3 SCC 1; (2011) 4 SCC 36; (2004) 2 SCC 510; (2017) 10 SCC 1; (1993) 4 SCC 441 – Relied upon

       (i) Interpretation of Fundamental Rights – Initially fundamental rights were viewed as separate and distinct – Rule of restrictive interpretation was applied – Change in perception with Court focusing on actual impairment caused by law – These rights collectively form a comprehensive test against the arbitrary exercise of powers. (Para 41, 43)

       AIR 1950 SC 27 : 1950 SCR 88; (2007) 2 SCC 1; (1970) 1 SCC 248; (1962) 3 SCR 842 : AIR 1962 SC 305; (1974) 1 SCR 1 : (1973) 1 SCC 856; (1975) 3 SCC 198 : (1975) 1 SCR 778; (1975) 2 SCR 832 : (1975) 2 SCC 81; (1978) 1 SCC 248; (2006) 8 SCC 212 – Relied upon

       (j) Interpretation of Constitution – Doctrine of Implied limitations – Legitimate deduction – Constitutional implications should always be based on compelling considerations – Reading a number of articles cohesively – Constitution should be interpreted in a broad and generous spirit – a (Para 45, 46, 47, 48)

       (2001) 7 SCC 231: (2007) 2 SCC 1; AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) 4 SCC 225; (1980) 3 SCC 625; (2014) 9 SCC 1; (2006) 7 SCC 1; (1972) 3 SCC 717; (1977) 4 SCC 193 – Relied upon

       [1947] 74 CLR 31 (Aust); [1992] 177 CLR 106 (Aust) – Referred

       (k) Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha – Rule 270, 274 and 277 – Report of Parliamentary Committee – Treated as an advice given by the Committee and meant for Parliament. (Para 81)

       (l) Constitution of India – Article 105, 194 and 19(1)(a) – Parliamentary privilege – Freedom of speech – No member of Parliament liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by him in the committee – Complete constitutional protection – Freedom under Article 105 distinct from Article 19(1)(a) – Article 105 of the Constitution in respect of Parliament is read mutatis mutandis with Article 194 in respect of State Legislature – Therefore interpretation of one of these articles would invariably apply to the other and vice versa. (Para 87, 88)

       AIR 1965 SC 745 – Relied upon

       (m) Constitution of India – Chapter III – Plenary powers of Legislature – Legislation beyond assigned legislative fields or transgressing fundamental rights are liable to be struck down. (Para 92)

       (n) Constitution of India – Article 212 – Anything said by members of Parliament or Legislature in legislative chambers – Cannot be called in question in any court of law – Protection to members absolute except where proceedings are not mere irregularity of procedure but illegal – Article 194(3). (Para 93, 94)

       (2007) 3 SCC 184 – Relied upon

       Special Reference No. 1 of 1964; [2001] 1 AC 395; 1831] Eng R 809 : (1831) 2 Russ & My 639: (1831) 39 ER 538; [1993] 1 SCR 319; (1884) 12 QBD 271 (D) – Referred

       (o) Constitution of India – Articles 121 and 122 – Restrictions imposed by Constitution on Parliament as well as judiciary – Article 121 prohibiting discussion in Parliament conduct of any Judge of Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties, expect upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of the Judge – Similarly Article 122 prohibiting Courts from enquiring into proceedings of Parliament or State Legislature. (Para 102, 105)

       (2007) 3 SCC 184; AIR 1965 SC 745 – Relied upon

       (p) Interpretation of Constitution – Legislative intent – External aid – Rule of Exclusion – Whittled down – Everything which is logically relevant should be admissible – Therefore, reports of special committee preceding the enactment, the existing state of law, the environment necessitating enactment of a legislation and the object sought to be achieved, etc. may be taken into consideration – So are speeches of Ministers in Parliament/Legislature – Not so with Statement of Objects and Reasons – Parliamentary committee report can be taken aid of for appreciating historical background of statutory provisions as also for resolving any kind of ambiguity in a provision – But referring to it for arriving at a factual finding involving contest and requiring the Court to rule thereon, is quite different. (Para 107, 108, 110)

       (1984) 2 SCC 183; (1981) 4 SCC 173; (1996) 1 SCC 130; (2013) 6 SCC 1; (1972) 1 SCC 298; (1976) 3 SCC 108; (1999) 4 SCC 306; (1980) 2 SCC 31; (2004) 1 SCC 712; (2006) 7 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       [1992] UKHL 3 : [1993] AC 593 : [1992] 3 WLR 1032; [1981] 1 SCR 469, 121 D.L.R. (3d) 41 – Referred

       (q) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 57(4) – Obliges Courts to take judicial notice of the course of proceedings of Parliament assuming it to be relevant – Parliamentary standing committee report is a public document being in the public domain – Admissible u/s 74 – Judicial notice can be taken of it u/s 57(4) – It can be taken on record – Open to public criticism – However when petitioners rely on such report, respondents would be entitled to contest – Thereby Court would have to adjudicate upon factual findings in the report – Admitting such Report being a public document is quite different from allowing a challenge to it – Factual score of PSC report cannot be allowed to be contested for adjudging a lis – Court can adjudicate the controversy without allowing a challenge to Parliamentary Standing Committee report. (Para 123, 124, 127, 135)

       (1976) 1 SCC 254; (1987) 1 SCC 700; (2001) 1 SCC 4; (2002) 7 SCC 368; (2017) 7 SCC 243; (2015) 16 SCC 795 – Relied upon

       (1995) 5 SCC 27; (2016) 7 SCC 353; (2011) 10 SCC 529 – Distinguished

       (r) Constitution of India – Article 105 – Parliamentary privilege – Criticizing PSC report – Not same as criticizing a member of Parliament – A citizen criticizing a PSC report would not be liable for violation of parliamentary privilege. (Para 135)

       (s) Interpretation of Constitution – Court has to strike a delicate balance between legislature and judiciary by juxtaposing self-evolved judicial restraint and the idea of jurisprudential progression – Decision of Court should be progressive and in accord with theory of judicial engagement. (Para 135, 137)

       (1984) 2 SCC 244; (1997) 6 SCC 241; (2006) 8 SCC 1; 2018 (5) SCALE 51 – Relied upon

       1939 AD 537; 384 U.S. 436 (1966) – Referred

        Per D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (concurring)

       (t) Constitution of India – Article 105, 121, 122, 194, 211 and 212 – Freedom of speech in Parliament and Legislature is expected, recognized and protected – Entrenched by conferring immunity for anything said or done in Parliament or Legislature – Similarly conduct of a judge of Constitutional Courts in discharge of his duty cannot be discussed in Legislature except upon a motion for his removal. (Para 20, 21)

       (u) Constitution of India – Article 277 – Report of Parliamentary Committees – have persuasive value being in the nature of advice given to Parliament. (Para 24)

       (v) Constitution of India – Article 105 and 194 – Parliamentary privilege – Exclusionary rule – Should be relaxed to permit reference to Parliamentary materials as an aid to statutory construction – In a challenge to governmental action on allegation of being actuated by extraneous reasons, statement by a Minister in Parliament could be used in court – Challenge would not be to the statement but to abuse of power by governmental authority founded on the statement – Law of parliamentary privilege – Based on need for free speech in Parliament and separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary – constitutional supremacy – Open to Court to examine whether a particular privilege claimed by the legislature is actually available to it. (Para 28, 32, 34, 41)

       (1965) 1 SCR 413; (1998) 4 SCC 626; (2007) 3 SCC 184 (2010) 6 SCC 113 – Relied upon

       (1960) 2 Q.B. 405; (1992) 3 W.L.R. 1032; (1994) 3 W.L.R. 970; (2001) 1 A.C. 395; (2007) 1 W.L.R. 2825; (2007) EWHC 242 (Admin); (2009) 3 W.L.R. 627; (2014) EWHC 3815 (Admin); (2004) UKPC 36; (1884) 12 QBD 271: 53 LJQB 290; (1994) 3 AII ER 407, PC – Referred

       (w) Constitutional law – Comparative law – Use of foreign judgments – UK and India – Limits – Parliamentary sovereignty in UK and Constitutional supremacy in India – Absolute power to any institution not allowed in India – Fundamental rights – Judicial scrutiny of exercise of parliamentary privileges permissible in case of violation of fundamental right or gross illegality. (Para 43)

       (x) Constitutional law – Separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary – Importance of the principle lies in independence of judiciary – Includes two components, ‘division of labour’ and ‘checks and balances’ – To encourage inter-institutional assistance and aid towards the joint enterprise of good governance – Separation not rigid in India – It entails that one organ or institution of the state cannot usurp the powers of another – Though a basic feature of Constitution – Legislature cannot declare a judgment null and void but enact a validating law – The doctrine limits “active jurisdiction” of each branch of government – Doctrine cannot be impediment in exercising power of judicial review in case of violation of fundamental rights. (Para 46, 48, 51, 52, 54, 56, 59)

       (1955) 2 SCR 225; (1965) 1 SCR 413; (1973) 4 SCC 225; (1975) Suppl SCC 1; (2007) 2 SCC 1; (2014) 12 SCC 696; (1976) 4 SCC 750; (1996) 7 SCC 637; (1997) 8 SCC 522; (1969) 2 SCC 283; (2016) 5 SCC 1; (2007) 6 SCC 586; (2010) 5 SCC 538; (2010) 3 SCC 571; (2017) 7 SCC 158 – Relied upon

       (y) Constitution of India – Article 105 – Report of Parliamentary Committee – It is an advice tendered to Parliament – Correctness of or the expediency or justification for the advice is a matter to be considered by the legislature and by it alone – Courts cannot decide its validity – Court has to adjudicate on basis of material before it and Parliamentary Committee’s finding of fact cannot be used as evidence for this purpose. (Para 60, 67)

       (2009) 10 SCC 564 – Referred

       (z) Constitutional law – Public Interest Litigation – Giving access to justice to persons who by reason of poverty, ignorance or marginalized status are unable to seek access to justice – Relaxation of rule of standing, hence social action litigation – Result, writ of continuing mandamus – Powerful tool to provide justice to the marginalized – Accountability of executive power to guarantees under Articles 14, 19 and 21, Constitution of India – a (Para 65)

       Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 57(4) – Distinction between the fact of a statement made in Parliament and correctness of what is stated on a question of fact in Parliament – Former can be relied upon in a court of law – Cannot be taken as evidence for proving truth of a disputable question of fact – This has to be done by independent evidence. (Para 68)

       (2009) 10 SCC 564; (1976) 1 SCC 254 – Relied upon

       Per Ashok Bhushan J. (concurring)

       (aa) Constitutional law – Parliamentary privilege – Refers to the immunity and powers possessed by each of the Houses of the Parliament and by Members of Parliament, which allow them to carry out their parliamentary functions effectively. (Para 25)

       (ab) Constitution of India – Article 105 – Gives constitutional recognition to 'freedom of speech' in Parliament – Confers absolute protection to a Member of Parliament against any proceeding in any court, in respect of anything said or vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof – Holds true for Parliamentary Committee Report also. (Para 31)

       (1998) 4 SCC 626 – Relied upon

       (ac) Constitution of India – Article 105 – Parliamentary privileges – Complete immunity to the Members of Parliament from any proceeding for anything said in any committee of the Parliament – Present is not such a case – Issue presently is whether by accepting, referring and relying on a Parliamentary Committee Report by Court there is any breach of privileges of Parliament. (Para 39, 40)

       AIR 1965 SC 745 – Referred

       (ad) Rajya Sabha Rules – Rules 277 – Parliamentary Standing Committee report – Shall have persuasive value. (Para 48)

       (ae) Parliamentary proceedings – Publication thereof – Section 3, 'Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977 and rule 379, Lok Sabha Rules – Publication of reports of parliamentary proceedings is privileged – Article 361A, Constitution of India – Parliament encourages publication of reports – After publication reports become public and can be obtained freely – Therefore no exception can be taken in the petitioners obtaining 72nd and 81st Reports of Parliamentary Standing Committee. (Para 53, 54, 56)

       1869 QB Vol. 4 at p. 73 – Referred

       (af) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 57 r/w Article 118, Constitution of India – Expression “course of proceeding of Parliament” is an expression of vide import – Includes proceedings of Parliamentary Standing Committee and its Report. (Para 63, 64)

       Constitution of India – Article 372(2) – Adaptation Order of 1950 – Has the force of law and is continued with full force – Amendments made in section 57(4) of Evidence Act by the said Order – Held valid and in force. (Para 67)

       (ag) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 74 – Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of all Legislature is a public document – No permission required for producing these documents as evidence in Courts – However, admission of a document does not lead to draw any presumption that the contents of the documents also are true and correct. (Para 69)

       AIR 1935 PC 34 – Referred

       2001 (4) Bom.LR 520 – Cited with approval

       (ah) Constitutional law – Report of Parliamentary (Standing) committee – Cannot be challenged for impeaching or questioning before any court. (Para 83)

       9 A.D. & E.2; (1884) 12 Q.B.D. 271; (1960) 2 Q.B. 405; (1972) 1 Q.B. 522 – Referred

       (ai) Constitutional law – Referring Parliamentary reports in court – Does not breach privilege if used for the purpose of construing legislation or for historical facts – No violation of any Parliamentary privilege in accepting Reports of Parliamentary Committee in Court. (Para 87, 93, 100, 101, 104)

       (1987) 1 SCC 700; (1995) 5 SCC 27; (2001) 1 SCC 4; (2003) 4 SCC 289; (2002) 7 SCC 368; 2017 SCC Online 394; (2011) 10 SCC 529; (2016) 7 SCC 353; (2015) 16 SCC 795 – Relied upon

       1993(1) All ER 42; (1994) 3 All ER 407; (1986) 5 NSWLR 18; (2003) UKHL 40; (2007) UKPC 48; (2010) QB 98; (2007) EWHC 2062 (Admin); 1983(2) All ER 233 – Referred

       (aj) Constitutional law – Parliamentary privileges – Exclusionary rule – Not applicable now – Courts not debarred from accepting Parliamentary materials and reports as evidence – Provided parties are not permitted to question or impeach the reports. (Para 110, 114)

       (1974) 3 SCC 337; (1984) 2 SCC 183; (2009) 10 SCC 564 – Relied upon

       (2013) 16 SCC 538; (20170 7 SCC 158 – Referred

       (ak) Constitutional law – Separation of powers between Legislative, Executive and Judiciary – Basic feature of Constitution – No rigid separation of powers – Constitution does not envisage supremacy of any of the three organs of the State – Functions of all the three wings sufficiently differentiated – Each has freedom to carry out its functions unhindered by any other wing – However, a delicate balance, mutual harmony and respect have to be maintained for true working of the Constitution. (Para 121, 123)

       AIR 1955 SC 549; AIR 1973 SC 1461; AIR 1965 SC 745 – Relied upon

       (al) Constitution of Inaid – a Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech of citizen – Comment on Parliamentary committee report – Not stifled unless amounting to reflection or personal attack on individual Member of Parliament or to the House in general. (Para 135, 142, 143)

       (1965) 1 SCR 413 – Relied upon

       1917 AC 309; 1986 (5) NSWLR 18; (1811) 104 ER 559 – Referred

       (am) Constitutional law – Separation of powers – No strict separation of powers between Legislature, Judicature and Executive – Constitution entrusting separate functions of each organ with clarity – Not contemplating assumption by one organ function which belongs to another organ of the State – Acceptance of a Parliamentary Committee Report in evidence does not mean that facts stated in the Report stand proved. (Para 146, 150)

       (2007) 2 SCC 1; (1977) 4 SCC 608 – Relied upon

       (1960) 2 Q.B. 405 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The issue in this case is as to whether a Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) report can be placed reliance upon for adjudication of a fact in issue and also for what other purposes it can be taken aid of.

       Finding of the Court:

       Parliamentary Standing Committee report can be taken aid of for the purpose of interpretation of a statutory provision as also for existence of a historical fact.

       Judicial notice can be taken of the Parliamentary Standing Committee report under Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act and it is admissible under Section 74 of the said Act.

       Result: Reference answered.