Case Summary
| Citation | Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy (1970) 2 SCC 272 |
| Keywords | literal rule, interpretation, Article 105 of constitution, Parliament, members |
| Facts | The Appellant was an admirer and follower of Jagaduru Shankaracharya. A World Hindu Religious Conference was held at Patna, and Shankaracharya took part in it. He observed that untouchability was in harmony with the tenets of Hinduism and added that no law could come in its way. He was also believed to have walked out while the National Anthem played at the event. During the Calling Attention Motion, Defamatory statements made against the Shankaracharya The appellant felt scandalized and filed a suit against Shri Sanjiva Reddy (former Speaker of the Lok Sabha), Shri Y. B. Chavan (Home Minister), and three members of Parliament for defamation, claiming damages of Rs. 26000. However, the High Court rejected the complaint, stating that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. |
| Issues | Whether what was said was outside the discussion on a Calling Attention Motion? |
| Contentions | Mr. Lekhi based his arguments on the grounds that in a previous judgement the court analysed Article 212 and remarked that the said article gave immunity against the irregularity of procedure, not its illegality. |
| Law Points | Court said that in the article, the word “anything” is wide and is equivalent to everything. The word “in Parliament” which means during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of business of Parliament. That anything said in during the course of the business of Parliament will be immune from proceedings in any Court. And in the present case, the parliament was in sitting and its business was being transacted when the ministers made those comments. So, following Art. 105 of the constitution, the courts have no say in the matter. |
| Judgement | Hence, the decision under the appeal was held to be correct and the appeal was dismissed. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority | Article 105(2) which says that “No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. |
Full Case Details
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. – This is an appeal from the order, August 4, 1969, of a Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi; rejecting a plaint filed by the six appellants claiming a decree for Rs 26,000/- as damages for defamatory statements made by Shri Sanjiva Reddy (former Speaker of the Lok Sabha), Shri Y. B. Chavan (Home Minister) and three members of Parliament on the floor of the Lok Sabha during a Calling Attention Motion. The High Court
held that no proceedings could be taken in a Court of law in respect of what was said on the floor of Parliament in view of Article 105(2) of the Constitution. The High Court, however, certified the case as fit for appeal to this Court under Article 133(i)(a) of the Constitution and this appeal has been brought.
- Notice of the lodgment of the appeal was issued to the respondents in due course but they have not appeared. The Union Government which joined, at its request, as a party in the High Court alone appeared through the Attorney-General. We have not considered it necessary to hear the Union Government.
- The facts of the case, in so far as they are relevant to our present purpose, may be briefly stated. The appellants claim to be the admirers and followers of Jagaduru Shankaracharya of Goverdan Peeth, Puri. In March, 1969, a World Hindu Religious Conference was held at Patna. The Shankaracharya took part in it and is reported to have observed that untouchability was in harmony with the tenets of Hinduism and that no law could stand in it? way and to have walked out when the National Anthem was played.
- On April 2, 1969 Shri Narendra Kumar Salve, M. P. (Betui) moved a Calling Attention Motion in the Lok Sabha and gave particulars of the happening. A discussion followed and the respondents execrated the Shankaracharya. According to the appellants, the respondents: “gave themselves up to the use of language which was more common place than serious, more lax than dignified, more unparliamentary than sober and jokes and puns were bandied around the playful spree, and his Holiness Jagadguru Shankaracharya Ananta Shri Vihushit Swami Shri Niranjan Deva Teertha of Govardhan Peeth, Puri, was made to appear as a superous (sic) dog.”
The appellants who hold the Shankaracharya in high esteem felt scandalized and brought the action for damages placing the damages at Rs 26,000. The plaint was rejected as the High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. - Article 105 of the Constitution, which defines the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament and its Members, provides: “105. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.
(2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any Court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
(3) In other respects, the powers, privileges, and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, and at the commencement of this Constitution.
(4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise of Parliament or any Committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament.” - The High Court held that in view of clause (2) of the Article no proceedings could lie in any Court in Parliament and the plaint must, therefore, be rejected.
- Mr Lekhi in arguing this appeal drew our attention to an observation of this Court in Special Reference No. 1 of l964 [(1965) 1 SCR 413, 455], where this Court dealing with the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution pointed out that the immunity under that Article was against an alleged irregularity of procedure but not against an illegality, and contended that the same principle should be applied here to determine whether what was said was outside the
discussion on a Calling Attention Motion. According to him the immunity granted by the second clause of the one hundred and fifth article was to what was relevant to the business of Parliament and not to something which was utterly irrelevant. - In our judgment it is not possible to read the provisions of the article in the way suggested. The article means what it says in language which could not be plainer. The article confers immunity inter alia in respect of “anything said……in Parliament”. The word ‘anything’ is of the widest import and is equivalent to ‘everything’. The only limitation arises from the words ‘in Parliament’ which means during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of the business of Parliament. We are concerned only with speeches in Lok Sabha. Once it was proved that Parliament was sitting and Its business was being transacted, anything said during the course of that business was immune from proceedings in any Court this immunity is not only complete but is as it should be. It is of the essence of parliamentary system of Government that people’s representatives should be free to express themselves without fear of legal
consequences. What they say is only subject to the discipline of the rules of Parliament, the good sense of the members and the control of proceedings by the Speaker. The Courts have no say in the matter and should really have none. - Mr Lekhi attempted to base arguments upon the analogy of an Irish case and another from Massachusetts reported in May’s Parliamentary Practice. In view of the clear provisions of our Constitution we are not required to act on analogies of other legislative bodies. The decision under appeal was thus correct. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
