Privileges of Parliament with respect to Parliamentary Committee Report and its Judicial Validity
Author: – Kumar Vikram Aditya
Lecturer, Bihar Institute of Law
ISSN: 2581-8465
Abstract
Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kalpana Mehta and Ors v. Union of India recognised the role, importance, and function of the parliamentary committee report. The Court also dealt with the fact that whether the parliamentary committee report, which comes in the public domain, can be protected under the provisions of the parliamentary privileges. The bench while recognizing the importance of the parliamentary committee report also went on to examine in other democratic nations the parliamentary committee works and the sanctity of its report. Finally while coming to India, the constitutional bench recognised the importance of parliamentary committee report along the parliamentary privileges enjoyed by the parliamentarian under Article 105 and Article 194 of the Indian Constitution. In the end, the bench recognised the judicial importance of the parliamentary committee report under the Evidence Act also. This paper analyses the judgment in brief and places the importance of the judgment with respect to parliamentary committee reports and parliamentary privileges. The paper also analyses the concept of separation of power along with the concept of “constitutional limitation” imposed upon the parliamentarians with respect to the passing of a legislation i.e. both the limitation, firstly imposed by the constitution and secondly imposed by the judiciary.
Introduction
The petition started with the allegation on the government claiming that Government of India didn’t preceded by adequate clinical trials while licensing vaccines to prevent cervical cancer. This petition was to be heard by a two-judge bench where the petitioner referred to a parliamentary committee report which was rejected by the bench.
The issue that came before the 5 judge bench was whether the parliamentary committee report can be relied upon in public interest under Article 32 and 226. In reply, the attorney general made the submission that the parliamentary committee report can be used at best for an external aid of construction to know the reason, circumstances and the facts that made the legislature to legislate the law.
Constitutional Principles
After going by the submission made by the petitioner and the respondent, the Court upheld the Supremacy of the Constitution and said that the Constitution of India is the supreme fundamental law and any law or legislation made must be made in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. The bench said this while quoting Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[1]. The Bench said that “Constitutional Sovereignty” is a sacrosanct concept of our Indian Constitution. Further, the bench reiterated State of Rajasthan v. UOI[2] stating that the Indian Constitution is the supreme lex, the paramount law of the land, and the responsibility ultimate interpreter of the Indian Constitution is invested in the hands of the Supreme Court. The court also laid down its reliance on the 9 judges bench judgment if I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu[3].
The bench then went to analyse the limitation that has been placed upon the legislature by the Indian Constitution. The court referred State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar[4] stating that parliament is not authorised to make any law imposing such restrictions on the Fundamental Rights that it exceeds the limitation imposed by the Constitution. The court further stated that while looking into the fact that whether the parliament has exceeded the constitutional limitation, the court shall look upon the limitations put upon by the Constitution. The court laid down emphasis on the Doctrine of constitutional limitation. The bench while quoting precedent[5] said that whether a Statue made by the legislature is constitutional or not is a question of power i.e. whether Constitution has granted the power to the legislature to frame and make such laws. The bench further reiterated that we have “constitutional sovereignty” and further accepted the principle that the Rule of law is the core of our constitution i.e. all the constitutional functionaries must act within their constitutional limitations. Apart from the doctrine of rule of law, the bench went to examine the doctrine of separation of power laid down in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[6] in 1975 and in Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab[7] in 1955. Both precedents applied the same principle and laid down that the concept of separation of power as enjoyed in India is not similar to that of the U.S.A. wherein India the separation is not exercised strictly, it is strictly given under the U.S. Constitution. Further, this doctrine was later held to be the basic structure of the Indian Constitution[8].
After citing several landmark judgments the bench came to the conclusion that constitutional limitation is a facet of the Doctrine of Separation of power. The bench further examined the judicial precedents related to Judicial Review and the duty cast upon the Court by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution. The bench further examined the duty upon the Court to interpret the Fundamental Rights to achieve the objectives as thought by the Constituent Assembly. The court also examined the role of the court to interpret other provisions of the Constitution.
Parliamentary Committees of other Democratic Nations
After examining the Constitutional principles the court gave its opinion on Parliamentary Committees. The bench emphasised on the role of Parliamentary Standing Committees. It has been described by Ronal D. Hedlund as a primary device to scrutinise the bills introduced and get the technical expertise with respect to the focus area. The court further examined the role of committees and called them “indispensable for the detailed work of supervision and control of the administration”. Committees do a prior investigation as to the need for the legislation, give their expert opinion, a thorough discussion on the bill and to scrutinise the bill so introduced. The bench upheld the global importance of the parliamentary committees and called them a vibrant and central institution of a democratic parliament.
Recourse to parliamentary committees has been recognised by the British parliament too which is there since the 14th century. Their essentiality has been recognised in the U.S.A congress too. Due to the high volume of its work and its complexity, parliamentary committees have been recognised as an integral part of the U.S. parliament. Because of the above-mentioned reason, the Senate divides its task among 20 permanent committees, 4 joint committees, and some temporary committees occasionally formed. Both the parliamentary committees of the US and the UK are given specific tasks to be performed. The parliament of Australia and Canada both take into account the reports made by Parliamentary Committees.
Parliamentary Committees of India
After dealing with the parliamentary committees of other nations the bench went to examine the functions of parliamentary committees of India. The bench said that the origin of the committees can be traced back to the Constitutional Reforms of 1919. The then Central Legislative Assembly provided for several committees including Public Accounts Committee which has similar functions as they have today. After the Constitution came into force, the advisory committee formed before independence underwent a transformation with respect to their functions and also their numbers. In general, there are two kinds of parliamentary committees: – Standing Committees and Ad hoc Committees in which the latter is temporary and the earlier is permanent. Standing committees are periodically elected by the house whereas the Ad hoc committees are established for a particular task and after that, it ceases to exist. The parliamentary committees of India have been founded in the English traditions too. The main task of the committees is “to enlighten the Members of Parliament on the whole range of governmental action including defence, external affairs, industry and commerce, agriculture, health and finance”[9]. The committees assist the Member of Parliament to understand the fabrics of democracy and help them with regard to the dynamics of it along with its working. It also helps them to modify, revise, and improve them with respect to the changing nature of society. The parliamentary committees have been defined in the as:- “Parliamentary Committee means a Committee which is appointed or elected by the House or nominated by the Speaker and which works under the direction of the Speaker and presents its report to the House or to the Speaker and the Secretariat for which is provided by the Lok Sabha Secretariat.”[10] Further, the Rule book defines the other kinds of Committees and the Sub – Committees along with its functions. The bench referred to Rule 277 of the Rule book which is specifically categorises the report of Parliamentary Committees as advice given by them and shall have persuasive value. The bench then went on to examine the privileges enjoyed by the parliamentarians under Article 105 and by the Members of State Legislature under Article 196. After an in-detail examination of the privileges enjoyed the court then examined the value of parliamentary proceedings. Court also discussed in detail the limitation imposed on it under article 121 and 211 that restricts the Member of Parliament and State legislature to not discuss the Conduct of Judges unless required. The bench reaffirmed the power of the court to review the legislature trespassing on the fundamental rights. Court further reaffirmed Article 122(1) and 212(1) that restricts the court to question the validity of any proceeding of the legislature on the ground of irregularity of procedure. But the court also warned that this immunity is not absolute and there may be examination subject to the restrictions placed under the constitution. The bench referred to R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay[11] which held that the report of the committees can be referred to as external aids of construction. The bench then referred State of West Bengal v. UOI[12] in which the court opined that the statement of object and reasons also cannot be used to determine the true intent behind the statute. The bench then acknowledged the decisions of the court in which the speeches of the Finance Minister were relied upon for the purpose of ascertaining the intent behind the provisions. The bench concluded that the use of reports and speeches are made when the meaning of the statute is not clear or to know the circumstances which led to the passing of such statute. The court said that that it can take the aid of the parliamentary committees report to ascertain and appreciate the history behind the statute and can refer the speeches too to deal with any kind of ambiguity in the provision of the statute. The bench also examined Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act 1872, which talks of “Facts of which Court must take judicial notice” which uses the word “Shall” i.e. the court is bound to take into notice the facts as per Section 54(4). The bench while referring to a precedent opined that the Court should take judicial notice of the course of proceedings of the parliament on the assumption that it is relevant.[13] The bench admitted that there can be no dispute that the report of the parliamentary committee is a public document and is therefore admissible under Evidence Act of which judicial notice can be taken by the court subject to the fact that the meaning of the statute is not clear or to know the circumstances which led to the passing of such statute. The aid of the report can also be taken to look upon what was the mischief that the legislature wanted to avoid by enacting the statute. The majority draw a line of distinction between the parliamentary committee report and the parliamentary proceeding of which judicial notice shall be taken of the latter one and the former one is required to be proved. The court though stated that judicial notice of parliamentary standing committees report can be taken if it exists and only for the aid. The bench after going with all the precedents cited by the petitioner held that “the constitutional obligation persuades us to take the view that the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report or any Parliamentary Committee Report can be taken judicial notice of and regarded as admissible in evidence, but it can neither be impinged nor challenged nor its validity can be called in question”[14]. The bench concluded by saying that the aid of the report can be taken where necessary and its judicial notice can be taken by the court but can’t be challenged in any court of law.
Separate opinion of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan
In minority Justice Chandrachud also acknowledged the use and functions of parliamentary committees report in India as well as other democratic nations. He also recognised the persuasive value of the Parliamentary Committees Report as given under Rule 277 of the Rulebook. Justice Chandrachud also outlined the importance of parliamentary privileges and its presence in the Indian Constitution and other democratic nations. He concluded by saying that the existence of the parliamentary committee is with the existence of the parliament and thus the correctness of any advice by the legislature shall be considered by the legislature alone. Once the report is made public the executive can’t rely upon parliamentary privilege. Justice Chandrachud concluded by saying that reliance can be placed upon the parliamentary committees’ report but its validity can’t be challenged in the court of law. Justice Ashok Bhushan also recognised the importance of parliamentary privileges along with the parliamentary committee report. He concluded by saying that the admissibility of the report in the court doesn’t mean that the facts stated in the report stand proved and thus the court will decide the issue with respect to the evidence made.
Conclusion
The authors conclude by saying that though the Court recognised the importance of Parliamentary Committees Report, to know the circumstances which led to the legislation of such statute and the intent behind it, unconditional reliance can’t be placed upon them. The report still needs to be examined by the court with respect to its sanctity.
[1] AIR 1973 SC 1461.
[2] (1977) 3 SCC 592.
[3] (2007) 2 SCC 1.
[4]AIR 1952 SC 75.
[5] Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1959 SC 648.
[6]1975 Supp. SCC 1.
[7]AIR 1955 SC 549.
[8]Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
[9]Kalpana Mehta and Ors v. Union of India and Ors, AIR 2018 SC 2493.
[10]Rule 2, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.
[11](1984) 2 SCC 183.
[12] AIR 1963 SC 1241.
[13]Sole Trustee Lok Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, (1976) 1 SCC 254.
[14]KalpanaMehta and Ors v. Union of India and Ors, AIR 2018 SC 2493.