2018 (5) TMI 2068 - SC - Indian Laws

Accepting on record a Parliamentary Standing Committee's Report - breach of privilege of Parliament - restrictions in its reference and use as per the parliamentary privileges enjoyed by the Legislature of this country? - invitation of contempt of House in traversing and questioning the reports - Parliamentary Privileges - Privileges of House of Commons - Role of Parliamentary Committees - Publication of Parliamentary Reports - Rules and Procedures regarding Permission for giving evidence in Courts regarding proceedings in parliament - applicability of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the context of Parliamentary Proceedings - nature and extent of Parliamentary privileges regarding reports of Committees of British Parliament - exclusionary rules how far applicable in the Indian context - separation of powers and maintaining a delicate balance between the Legislature, executive and Judiciary - Article 121 and 122 of Constitution of India - comments on reports of parliamentary committee whether breach of privilege - adjudication of Courts and Parliamentary Committee Report. HELD THAT - Following conclusions are reached (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' 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 be binding between the parties. The parties are at liberty to 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. 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 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 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. (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 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, 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. (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. The questions having been answered, let these writ petitions be listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Parliamentary Standing Committee report can be relied upon in judicial proceedings under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether such a report can be looked at for the purpose of reference and if so, the extent and restrictions for its use considering parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers.

Detailed Analysis:

A. Introduction:
The Court emphasized the balance between interpreting constitutional provisions progressively and maintaining judicial restraint. The case centered on whether a Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) report could be relied upon for adjudicating facts and other purposes.

B. The factual background:
The case arose from the approval and administration of the HPV vaccine by Indian authorities and the untimely deaths linked to it. The PSC report on the issue was brought to the Court’s attention, leading to a reference to a Constitution Bench to address the admissibility and reliance on such reports.

C. Contentions of the Petitioners:
Petitioners argued that the Court should take judicial notice of the PSC report under Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act. They claimed the report could be used to support facts without challenging parliamentary privilege or the separation of powers.

D. Contentions of the Respondents:
Respondents opposed the reliance on the PSC report, arguing it would breach parliamentary privilege and disturb the constitutional balance. They contended that such reports are advisory and not subject to judicial scrutiny.

E. Supremacy of the Constitution:
The Constitution is the supreme law, and all laws must conform to it. The judiciary has the final authority to interpret the Constitution, ensuring that legislative and executive actions comply with constitutional provisions.

F. Constitutional limitations upon the legislature:
Legislative power is subject to constitutional limitations, and laws exceeding these limits can be declared unconstitutional by the judiciary.

G. Doctrine of separation of powers:
The separation of powers is a basic feature of the Constitution, ensuring that each branch of government operates within its domain without encroaching on the others. The judiciary respects legislative and executive functions but retains the power to review their actions for constitutional compliance.

H. Power of judicial review:
Judicial review is a cornerstone of the Constitution, allowing courts to invalidate laws and actions that violate constitutional provisions. This power comes with the responsibility of judicial restraint, ensuring that courts do not overstep their boundaries.

I. Interpretation of the Constitution:
The Court has a duty to interpret the Constitution dynamically, considering contemporary values and the evolving nature of society. This includes interpreting fundamental rights and other constitutional provisions to protect individual liberties and ensure justice.

J. A perspective on the role of Parliamentary Committees:
Parliamentary Committees play a crucial role in scrutinizing government actions and policies. Their reports provide valuable insights but are advisory and not binding on the judiciary.

K. International position of Parliamentary Committees:
The role and functioning of Parliamentary Committees in countries like the UK, USA, Canada, and Australia were examined, highlighting their importance in legislative oversight and accountability.

L. Parliamentary Committees in India:
Indian Parliamentary Committees, including Department-related Standing Committees, have significant functions, including examining bills, scrutinizing government actions, and considering policy documents. Their reports are advisory and have persuasive value.

M. Parliamentary privilege:
Parliamentary privilege protects the freedom of speech in Parliament and the immunity of members from legal proceedings for actions within Parliament. This privilege extends to Parliamentary Committee reports, ensuring they cannot be questioned or impeached outside Parliament.

N. Reliance on parliamentary proceedings as external aids:
The Court can refer to Parliamentary Committee reports to understand legislative intent and historical context. However, their findings cannot be treated as conclusive evidence in judicial proceedings.

O. Section 57(4) of the Indian Evidence Act:
Section 57(4) mandates judicial notice of parliamentary proceedings, including committee reports. These reports are public documents and admissible in evidence, but their factual findings must be independently proved in court.

P. The decisions in which parliamentary standing committee report/s have been referred to:
The Court has previously referred to and relied on Parliamentary Committee reports in various cases without breaching parliamentary privilege. These reports can be used to understand legislative history and policy context but not as conclusive evidence.

Q. Conclusions:
1. Parliamentary Standing Committee reports can be taken aid of for interpreting statutory provisions and understanding historical facts.
2. Judicial notice can be taken of these reports under Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act, and they are admissible under Section 74.
3. In litigation under Article 32 or Article 136, the Court can take these reports on record but cannot impinge or challenge them.
4. Contentious facts in these reports must be independently adjudicated by the Court based on evidence.
5. Citizens can make fair comments and criticisms on these reports without violating parliamentary privilege.

The reference was answered accordingly, and the writ petitions were directed to be listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing.