New Delhi : The report of a parliamentary standing committee has “persuasive” value but it is neither binding, nor can it be used to prove disputed facts, some pharma companies told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The submission was made before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which is to decide questions including whether the court can rely on or refer to parliamentary committee reports in judicial proceedings, reports PTI.
The issue whether a parliamentary panel report can be relied upon in judicial proceedings had arisen after the petitioners had referred to the 81st Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee, issued on December 22, 2014, allegedly indicting some pharma firms for conducting trials of the controversial Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine.
“The report of a standing committee of Parliament has persuasive value and it is advisory in nature,” senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for some pharma companies, told the bench, which also comprised Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.
He said the report of a parliamentary panel was not binding on Parliament and the court and hence cannot be relied upon to prove disputed facts.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for one of the petitioners who is opposing controversial HPV vaccine, said he was not relying on the parliamentary panel report but had rather referred to it.
Earlier, the Centre, in its affidavit, had said the reports of parliamentary panels should not be used as evidence in a court of law.
The case came up for hearing in the apex court in 2012 and centered around aspects relating to action taken by the Drugs Controller General of India and the Indian Council of Medical Research pertaining to the approval of HPV vaccine manufactured by M/s GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt Ltd and MSD Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd for preventing cervical cancer in women.
The hearing remained inconclusive and would resume on Wednesday. While referring the matter to the five-judge bench on April 5, the top court had said it “might be crossing the boundary of federal structure” if it acted on the basis of a parliamentary committee report in a PIL.
