KALPANA MEHTA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

p. 248 Copy page pinpoint

A the comments when turns into personal attack on the individual member of Parliament or House or made in vulgar or abusive language tarnishing the image of member or House, the said comments amount to contempt of the House and breach of privilege.

143Copy pinpoint143. In the present case, learned counsel for the respondents have B contended that in the event, they raise objections regarding Parliamentary Committee Report which has adversely commented on their role they shall be liable to be proceeded for committing contempt of the House, hence, this Court may neither permit the Parliamentary Committee Report to be taken in evidence nor allow the petitioners to rely on the report. No party is precluded in making fair comments on the Parliamentary C Committee Report which comments remain within the bounds of a fair comments and does not transgress the limits prescribed for fair comments. The Parliamentary Committee Reports when published, the press are entitled to make fair comments. We fail to see any reason prohibiting the parties who were referred to in the Parliamentary Committee Report D to make such fair comments or criticism of the Report as permissible under law without breach of privilege. L.ADJUDICATION IN COURTS AND PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORT

144Copy pinpoint144. ‘Adjudication’ is the power of Court to decide and pronounce E a judgment and carry it into effect between the persons and parties who bring a cause before it for a decision. Both for civil and criminal cases people look forward to Courts for justice. To decide controversy between its subject had always been treated as a part of sovereign functions. Constitutional law developments emphasised separation of powers of F Governmental functions for protecting rights and liberties of people.

145Copy pinpoint145. Montesquieu in L’Esprit des Lois, 1748, the modern exponent of the doctrine of separation of powers states: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or on the same body or Magistrates, there can G be no liberty. Again, there is no liberty if the judicial power is not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative power, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the Judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined with the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. H

p. 249 Copy page pinpoint

[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

There would be an end of everything were the same man or the same body to exercise these three powers...”.

146Copy pinpoint146. In our Constitution although there is no strict separation of powers of the three branches that is Legislature, Judicature and Executive but Constitutional provisions entrust separate functions of each organ with clarity which makes it clear that our Constitution does not contemplate assumption by one organ function which belongs to another organ of the State. A nine-Judge Constitution Bench in I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007 (2) SCC 1, while dealing with the separation of powers stated following in paragraphs 64, 65 and 67: C “64. In fact, it was settled centuries ago that for preservation of liberty and prevention of tyranny it is absolutely essential to vest separate powers in three different organs. In Federalist 47, 48, and 51, James Madison details how a separation of powers preserves liberty and prevents tyranny. In The Federalist 47, Madison discusses Montesquieu’s treatment of the separation of powers in the Spirit of Laws (Book XI, Chapter 6). There Montesquieu writes, “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of Magistrates, there can be no liberty.... Again, there is no liberty, if the judicial power be not separated from the legislative and executive.” Madison points out that Montesquieu did not feel that different branches could not have overlapping functions, but rather that the power of one department of Government should not be entirely in the hands of another department of Government. F

65. Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist 78, remarks on the importance of the independence of the judiciary to preserve the separation of powers and the rights of the people: “The complete independence of the courts of justice is G peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be H

p. 250 Copy page pinpoint

A preserved in practice in no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.” (434)

B 67. The Supreme Court has long held that the separation of powers is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Even before the basic structure doctrine became part of Constitutional law, the importance of the separation of powers on our system of governance was recognized by this Court in Special Reference No.1 of 1964, (1965) 1 SCR 413.” C

147Copy pinpoint147. Adjudication of rights of the people is a function not entrusted to the Legislature of the country. Apart from legislation our Parliament has become multi-functional institution performing various roles, namely, inquisitorial, financial and administrative surveillance, grievance redressal and developmental. Parliament, however, is not vested with any D adjudicatory jurisdiction which belongs to judicature under the Constitutional Scheme. This Court in State of Karnataka v. Union of India, 1977 (4) SCC 608, while considering Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution of India laid down following: “Our Constitution vests only legislative power in Parliament E as well as in the State Legislatures. A House of Parliament or State Legislature cannot try anyone or any case directly, as a Court of Justice can, but it can proceed quasi-judicially in cases of contempt of its authority and take up motions concerning its “privileges” and “immunities” because, in doing so, it only seeks removal of obstructions to the due performance of its legislative functions. But, it any question of jurisdiction arises as to whether a matter falls here or not, it has to be decided by the ordinary courts in appropriate proceedings. For example, the jurisdiction to try a criminal offence, such as murder, committed even within a House vests in ordinary criminal courts and not in a House of Parliament or in a State Legislature.”

148Copy pinpoint148. The function of adjudicating rights of the parties has been entrusted to the constituted courts as per Constitutional Scheme, which

p. 251 Copy page pinpoint

[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

adjudication has to be made after observing the procedural safeguards A which include right to be heard and right to produce evidence.

149Copy pinpoint149. In Dingle v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. and Others (supra) in a case of damages for libel where defendants relied on Parliamentary Committee Report published, Pearson, J., laid down as follows: B “...in my view, this court should make its own findings based on the evidence adduced and on the arguments presented in this court, and that should be done without regard to any decisions reached or opinions expressed or findings made by a different tribunal having a different function, and, probably, C different issues before it, and having received different evidence and a different presentation of the case.”

150Copy pinpoint150. The apprehension of the respondents that their case shall be prejudiced if this Court accepts the Parliamentary Committee Report in evidence, in our opinion is misplaced. By acceptance of a Parliamentary D Committee Report in evidence doest not mean that facts stated in the Report stand proved. When issues, facts come before a Court of law for adjudication, the Court is to decide the issues on the basis of evidence and materials brought before it and in which adjudication Parliamentary Committee Report may only be one of the materials, what weight has to be given to one or other evidence is the adjudicatory function of the E Court which may differ from case to case. The Parliamentary Committee Reports cannot be treated as conclusive or binding of what has been concluded in the Report. When adjudication of any claim fastening any civil or criminal liability on an individual is up in a Court of law, it is open for a party to rely on all evidences and materials which is in its power F and Court has to decide the issues on consideration of entire material brought before it. When the Parliamentary Committee Report is not adjudication of any civil or criminal liability of the private respondents, their fear that acceptance of report shall prejudice their case is unfounded. We are, thus, of the opinion that by accepting Parliamentary Committee Report on the record in this case and considering the Report by this G Court, the respondents’ right to dispel conclusions and findings in the Report are not taken away and they are free to prove their case in accordance with law.

p. 252 Copy page pinpoint

151Copy pinpoint151. OUR CONCLUSIONS (i) According to sub-clause (2) of Article 105 of Constitution of India 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 extended under sub-clause (2) of Article 105 of the Constitution of India. (ii)The publication of the reports not being only permitted, but also are being encouraged by the Parliament. The general public are keenly interested in knowing about the parliamentary proceedings including parliamentary reports which are steps towards the governance of the country. The right to know about the reports only arises when they have been published for use of the public in general. (iii)Section 57(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that the course of proceedings of Parliament and the Legislature, established under any law are facts of which judicial notice shall be taken by the Court. (iv)Parliament has already adopted a report of “privilege committee”, that for those documents which are public documents within the meaning of Indian Evidence Act, there is no requirement of any permission of Speaker of Lok Sabha for producing such documents as evidence in Court. (v)That mere fact that document is admissible in evidence whether a public or private document does not lead to draw any presumption that the contents of the documents are also true and correct. (vi)When a party relies on any fact stated in the Parliamentary Committee Report as the matter of noticing an event or history no exception can be taken on such reliance of the report. However, no party can be allowed to ‘question’ or ‘impeach’ G report of Parliamentary Committee. The Parliamentary privilege, that it shall not be impeached or questioned outside the Parliament shall equally apply both to a party who files claim in the court and other who objects to it. Any observation in the report or inference of the Committee cannot be held to H

p. 253 Copy page pinpoint

[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

be binding between the parties. The parties are at liberty to A lead evidence independently to prove their stand in a court of law. (vii)Both the Parties have not disputed that Parliamentary Reports can be used for the purposes of legislative history of a Statute as well as for considering the statement made by a minister. B When there is no breach of privilege in considering the Parliamentary materials and reports of the Committee by the Court for the above two purposes, we fail to see any valid reason for not accepting the submission of the petitioner that Courts are not debarred from accepting the Parliamentary materials and reports, on record, before it, provided the Court C does not proceed to permit the parties to question and impeach the reports. (viii)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 D 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 E under which we all live. (ix)We are of the view that fair comments on report of the Parliamentary Committee are fully protected under the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). However, the comments when turns into personal attack on the individual member of F Parliament or House or made in vulgar or abusive language tarnishing the image of member or House, the said comments amount to contempt of the House and breach of privilege. (x)The function of adjudicating rights of the parties has been entrusted to the constituted courts as per Constitutional Scheme, G which adjudication has to be made after observing the procedural safeguards which include right to be heard and right to produce evidence. Parliament, however, is not vested with any adjudicatory jurisdiction which belong to judicature under the Constitutional scheme. H

p. 254 Copy page pinpoint

A (xi)Admissibility of a Parliamentary Committee Report in evidence does not mean that facts stated in the Report stand proved. When issues of facts come before a Court of law for adjudication, the Court is to decide the issues on the basis of evidence and materials brought before it.

152Copy pinpoint152. The questions having been answered as above, let these writ petitions be listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing.

Nidhi Jain Referred issue answered.