NEW DELHI: In a first, the
Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that parliamentary standing committee reports, often cited by PIL petitioners, could be relied upon by constitutional courts to ensure socio-economic rights of citizens.
Giving a ruling in a virgin field involving sensitive legislature-judiciary interplay, a constitution bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan was unanimous that judicial notice could be taken of these reports but put a caveat that the contents, conclusions and views expressed by individual MPs in such reports could not be challenged in a court of law.
In another important sub-ruling, the CJI said fair criticism of such reports would not invite notice for breach of parliamentary privilege from the House concerned. "Parliamentary standing committee report being in public domain can invite fair comments and criticism from citizens as in such a situation, the citizens do not really comment upon any member of
Parliament to invite the hazard of violation of parliamentary privilege," the bench said.
However, Justice Bhushan said, "When comments turn into personal attack on an individual MP or House or are made in vulgar or abusive language tarnishing the image of a member or House, the said comments amount to contempt of the House or breach of privilege."
If senior advocates Colin Gonsalves and Anand Grover scored a victory of sorts in getting the SC's nod to PIL petitioners relying on parliamentary standing committee reports to bolster their case, the SC struck a delicate balance by accepting arguments from senior advocate
Harish Salve, attorney general K K Venugopal and Shyam Divan that when the contents of such reports were contentious, constitutional courts could not rely upon it while rendering a decision.
In a writ petition filed by Kalpana Mehta and others, the testing of a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer manufactured by a private firm on women by the governments of
Gujarat and
Andhra Pradesh without their consent was challenged. During the arguments, the report of a parliamentary standing committee was cited, which was objected to by the Union government, which pointed to the doctrine of separation of power between legislature and judiciary. This issue was referred to a five-judge bench.
Though there were three separate judgments, one by the CJI and Justice Khanwilkar, another by Justices Sikri and Chandrachud and the third by Justice Bhushan, the conclusions of all three were identical.
Justice Chandrachud, writing for him and Justice Sikri, explained that democratic governance in India had travelled a long way since shaking off colonial rule.
"Since the Constitution is about transformation and its vision is about empowerment, our reading of precepts drawn from a colonial past, including parliamentary privilege, must be subjected to a nuance that facilitates assertion of rights and access to justice. We no longer live in a political culture based on subordination of individuals to the authority of the state. Our interpretation of the Constitution must reflect a keen sense of awareness of basic change which the Constitution has made to the polity and to its governance," he said.
