9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a). 2. Legislative Privileges under Article 194(3). 3. Conflict between Fundamental Rights and Legislative Privileges. 4. Procedural Validity of Legislative Actions. 5. Allegation of Mala Fides. Detailed Analysis: 1. Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a): The petitioner, a journalist, claimed that his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) was violated by the Bihar Legislative Assembly's action against him for publishing a report of the Assembly's proceedings. The court acknowledged that freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of the press, as held in previous judgments such as Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras and Brijbhushan v. State of Delhi. However, the court had to determine whether this right was absolute or subject to legislative privileges. 2. Legislative Privileges under Article 194(3): Article 194(3) confers on State Legislatures the same powers, privileges, and immunities as those of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom at the commencement of the Constitution. The court examined whether these privileges included the power to prohibit the publication of proceedings or expunged portions thereof. Historical analysis indicated that while the House of Commons had such privileges, they were largely obsolete and not enforced in modern times except in cases of mala fide publication. 3. Conflict between Fundamental Rights and Legislative Privileges: The primary issue was whether the privileges under Article 194(3) could override the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). The court concluded that Article 194(3) is not subject to Article 19(1)(a), meaning the privileges of the Legislature could prevail over the fundamental rights of citizens. This was based on the interpretation that the Constitution did not explicitly make Article 194(3) subject to the provisions of the Constitution, unlike other Articles. 4. Procedural Validity of Legislative Actions: The petitioner argued that the Legislative Assembly did not follow its own rules while initiating privilege proceedings. Specifically, it was contended that the motion was not related to a specific matter of recent occurrence as required by Rule 207, and that there was non-compliance with Rules 208 and 209 regarding objections to the motion. The court found no substance in these procedural objections, stating that the Speaker's discretion in determining the recency of the matter and the absence of objections from members indicated compliance with the rules. 5. Allegation of Mala Fides: The petitioner alleged that the privilege proceedings were initiated with mala fide intentions by the Chief Minister, who presided over the Privilege Committee. The court found no evidence to support this claim and noted that the Committee included members from various parties, making it unlikely that the entire Committee acted with mala fide intent. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the ultimate decision rested with the House, not the Committee alone. Conclusion: The majority judgment dismissed the petition, holding that the Legislative Assembly's privileges under Article 194(3) could override the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). The court also found no procedural irregularities or evidence of mala fides in the actions of the Legislative Assembly. However, a dissenting opinion by one judge argued that the fundamental right to freedom of speech should prevail and that the privileges claimed by the Legislative Assembly were not justified.
|
