TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference and, if so, can there be restrictions for the purpose of reference regard being had to the concept of parliamentary privilege and the delicate balance between the constitutional institutions that Articles 105, 121 and 122 of the Constitution conceive? - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 558 of 2012, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 921 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2017 - Dipak Misra And Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J. Though the present writ petitions were preferred in the years 2012 and 2013 and the debate had centered around on many an aspect relating to action taken by the Drugs Controller General of India and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) pertaining to approval of a vaccine, namely, Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) manufactured by the respondent No. 7, M/s. GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt. Ltd. and the respondent No.8, MSD Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, respectively for preventing cervical cancer in women and the experimentation of the vaccine was done as an immunization by the Governments of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh (before bifurcation, the State of Andhra Pradesh, eventually the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana) with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawn the attention of this Court to the 81st Report dated 22nd December, 2014 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Be it noted, when the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee was produced, the question arose with regard to the concept of consent for administration of vaccine and the resultant illness suffered by the victims and such other issues and the Court had issued certain directions for filing of affidavits pertaining to steps that have been taken by the concerned Governments keeping in view the various instructions given from time to time including what has been stated in the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. 5. It is worthy to note here that certain affidavits were filed about the safety measures being undertaken with regard to the consent and the method of trial and the improvements made thereon. In essence, the stand of the Union of India and the States was that the vaccine was necessary and steps have been taken to avoid any kind of hazards. That apart, the factual allegations made by the petitioners were also controverted. 6. On 18th November, 2015, an issue was raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or there is no attempt to impugn the report or criticize the same, reliance on the same should not be prohibited. It is urged by Mr. Gonsalves that the role of the Parliament in the modern democracy has gone beyond the traditional concept and the perception is to have a transparent society and when there is access to the report, there is no warrant not to utilize the same in a proceeding before the Court. 9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India would in reply submit that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are to be tested on the constitutional parameters and various Articles of the Constitution are to be read in proper perspective. It is asserted by him that the constitutional scheme does not favour the interpretation which is sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for Union of India, the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committees are meant to guide the functioning of the departments and work as a precursor to the debate in Parliament but not meant to be used in court as it does not countenance any contest in a court of law. 10. To appreciate the controversy, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and Scheduled Tribes 30 House Committee 12 Joint Committee on Offices of Profit 15 Joint Committee on Salaries and Allowances of Members of Parliament 15 Library Committee 9 Rules Committee 15 vi) Apart from the above, there are various departmentally related Standing Committees under various ministries. 12. From the aforesaid, it is quite clear that there are various departmentally related Standing Committees under various Ministries. It is apt to note here that in the case at hand, Rule 270 of the Rules which deals with the functions of the Parliamentary Committee meant for Committees Rajya Sabha is relevant. It reads as follows:- 270. Functions Each of the Standing Committees shall have the following functions, namely:- (a) to consider the Demands for Grants of the related Ministries/ Departments and report thereon. The report shall not suggest anything of the nature of cut motions; (b) to examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned/debated by the House and only thereafter they are adopted. Our attention has been drawn to Rule 277 and Rule 278 made for Lok Sabha which provide for Scope of Advice regarding reports submitted by Select/Joint Committees. In essence, the purpose of reliance is, it is a matter of concern to the debates in the Parliament. 17. At this juncture, we may look at the origin and working of the Parliamentary Committee. The Committee system in India, as has been stated in The Committee System in India : Effectiveness in Enforcing Executive Accountability , Hanoi Session, March 2015, is as follows:- The origin of the Committee system in India can be traced back to the Constitutional Reforms of 1919. The Standing Orders of the Central Legislative Assembly provided for a Committee on Petitions relating to Bills, Select Committee on Amendments of Standing Orders, and Select Committee on Bills. There was also a provision for a Public Accounts Committee and a Joint Committee on a Bill. Apart from Committees of the Legislative Assembly, members of both Houses of the Central Legislature also served on the Standing Advisory Committees attached to various Departments of the Government of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petitioners, would contend that the executive being accountable to the Parliamentary Standing Committee, the report of the Committee which is in the public domain and hence, that can be relied upon by them to buttress a fact situation and in any way, establish it. Learned counsel for the Union of India and the contesting respondents, per contra, would urge that the Parliamentary Standing Committee report cannot be tendered as a piece of evidence to prove a fact and once it is referred to, it invites a contest and criticism. 20. We may fruitfully state that the procedure of the Committee is neither inquisitorial nor adjudicative. It has its own character. The procedure is sui generis. In the Westminister system, Parliament also deals with the matter of accountability of the executive and standing Committees of Parliament, on many an occasion, examine the propriety and wisdom of the conduct of the executive. The reports of the Committees are for the assistance of Parliament. The procedure for drawing up such reports, is entirely a matter for the Committee and it has authority to receive evidence from witnesses but it is for their own assistance. No person has a right to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. If it were permissible to the court to compel the government by a mandamus to bring a constitutional amendment into force on the ground that the government has failed to do what it ought to have done, it would be equally permissible to the court to prevent the government from acting, on some such ground as that, the time was not yet ripe for issuing the notification for bringing the Amendment into force. 24. The aforesaid passage shows that the Court does not have the power to direct the Parliament to bring an Act into force. Drawing an analogy, it is canvassed that as the Court cannot issue a writ to implement the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee or rely on it for the purpose of issuance of a writ. 25. Ms. Manisha Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, PATH International, contended that the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee cannot be assailed as has been held in M.S.M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha and Others AIR 1960 SC 1186. In this regard, she has drawn our attention to paragraph 431(o) of Raja Ram Pal (supra) which states thus:- The truth or correctness of the material will not be questioned by the court nor wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for the majority, held that debates in Constituent Assembly can be relied upon as an aid to interpretation of a constitutional provision and for the said purpose the learned Judge relied upon the decisions in Madhu Limaye, In re (1969) 1 SCC 292, Union of India v. Harbhajan Sinhg Dhillon (1971) 2 SCC 779 and several opinions in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another (1973) 4 SCC 225. 31. In Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1, the majority of the Constitution Bench relied on the Constituent Assembly debates while dealing with the concept of constitutional trust. 32. As the Constituent Assembly debates are referred to for interpretation of a constitutional provision and especially to understand the context, similarly judicial notice of parliamentary proceedings can be taken note of for the purpose of appreciating the intention of the legislature. 33. In Jyoti Harshad Mehta and others v. Custodian and others (2009) 10 SCC 564, it has been held that reports of the Joint Parliamentary Committee are admiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association AIR 1980 SC 387 where the speech made by the Finance Minister while introducing the exclusionary clause in Section 2, clause (15) of the Act was relied upon by the Court for the purpose of ascertaining what was the reason for introducing that clause. 36. Similar references have also been made in Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte (1996) 1 SCC 130. That apart, Parliamentary debates have also been referred to appreciate the context relating to the construction of a statute in Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 1, State of M.P. v. Dadabhoy s New Chirimiri Ponri Hill Colliery Co. (P) Ltd. (1972) 1 SCC 298, Union of India v. Steel Stock Holders Syndicate (1976) 3 SCC 108, K.P. Varghese (supra) and Surana Steels (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 4 SCC 306. 37. We have referred to these authorities to highlight that the said speeches have been referred to or not referred to for the purposes indicated therein and when the meaning of a statute is not clear or ambiguous, the circumstances that led to passing of the legislation can be look into to ascertain the intention of the legislatu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ext held:- 50. It is well settled by a long line of judicial authority that the findings of even a statutory commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 are not enforceable proprio vigore as held in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar 28 AIR 1958 SC 538 and the statements made before such Commission are expressly made inadmissible in any subsequent proceedings civil or criminal. The leading judicial pronouncements on that question were succinctly analysed by this Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181, SCC paras 29-34. Para 34 of the judgment inter alia reads: 34. In our view, the courts, civil or criminal, are not bound by the report or findings of the Commission of Inquiry as they have to arrive at their own decision on the evidence placed before them in accordance with law. 51. Therefore, courts are not bound by the conclusions and findings rendered by such commissions. The statements made before such commission cannot be used as evidence before any civil or criminal court. It should logically follow that even the conclusions based on such statements can also not be used as evidence in any court. The Janakiraman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, 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, 1[shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. (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 to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament. 42. What is necessary to understand from Article 105(2) is that no member of the Parliament can be made liable for any proceeding in any court because of what he has stated in a committee. The Parliamentary Standing Committee is a committee constituted under the Rules and what a member speaks over there is absolutely within the domain of that committee. Freedom of speech of a member of a Committee is only guided subject to provisions of the Constitution and the Rules and standing orders regulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners is that there is no question of any kind of judicial review from this Court or attributing anything on the conduct of any of the members of the Committee, but to look at the report for understanding the controversy before us. The submission looking at the report, as we perceive, is nothing but placing reliance thereupon. The view of a member of the Parliament or a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee who enjoys freedom of speech and expression within the constitutional parameters and the rules or regulations framed by the Parliament inside the Parliament or the Committee is not to be adverted to by the court in a lis. 48. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the observations made by the House of Lords in Hamilton v. Al Fayed [2001] 1 A.C. 395:- The Court of Appeal held, first, that apart from any question of parliamentary privilege the principle in Hunter s case [1982] AC 529 had no application: a parliamentary decision was not analogous to a decision of the court. Next, the Court of Appeal held that the proceedings before the PCS, his report and its acceptance by the CSP were all parliamentary proceedings and therefore any attempt to inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. Once the Court is asked to look at the report, the same can be challenged by the otherside, for it cannot be accepted without affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondents. The invitation to contest a Parliamentary Standing Committee report is likely to disturb the delicate balance that the Constitution provides between the constitutional institutions. If the Court allows contest and adjudicates on the report, it may run counter to the spirit of privilege of Parliament which the Constitution protects. 51. As advised at present, we are prima facie of the view that the Parliamentary Standing Committee report may not be tendered as a document to augment the stance on the factual score that a particular activity is unacceptable or erroneous. However, regard being had to the substantial question of law relating to interpretation of the Constitution involved, we think it appropriate that the issue be referred to the Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. We frame the following questions for the purpose of reference to the Constitution Bench:- (i) Whether in a litigation filed before this Court either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
