Judgments

PANDIT M. S. M. SHARMA VS SRI KRISHAN SINHA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Pandit M.S.M. Sharma Vs. Sri Krishan Sinha (1959) AIR 395  held that House of Commons has right to prohibit even true and faithful reporting of proceeding of house at the time of commencement of Indian Constitution and Indian Parliament and  State Legislatures have also the similar power. The Supreme Court also held that freedom of speech referred under Article 194 (1) is different from freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and cannot be cut down in any way by any law contemplated under Article 19 (2).

FACTS OF THE CASE

On May 30, 1957, there was a debate in the Bihar Legislative Assembly wherein one of the oldest members of the House made a speech critical of the administration of the present government. Speaker held a part of the speech objectionable and directed it to be struck off and expunged. The Searchlight, a daily newspaper, published on 31st May, 1957 whatever has happened in the Legislative Assembly.  Even the expunged part was also published. A Privilege Motion was moved and referred to Privilege Committee. On August 18, 1958, the Petitioner received notice to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against him for breach of privilege. Writ Petition under Article 32 against the same was filed before the Supreme Court.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court considered two issues in this case. Firstly, whether House of Legislature in India can prohibit entirely the publication of proceedings under Article 194 (3) or only expunged parts ? Secondly,  whether Privilege under Article 194 (3) prevail over Fundamental Right under Article 19 (1) (a) ?

The Supreme Court noted that under Article 194 (3) the Legislative Assembly has all the privileges of House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution.

It was contended that House of Commons had power and privilege to prohibit the publication in any newspaper of even a true and faithful report of tis proceedings and certainly the publication of any portion of speeches or proceedings directed to be expunged from the official record.

The Supreme Court noted that privileges of House of Commons can be grouped under two categories – those demanded from crown by the speaker of House of Commons at the commencement of each Parliament and grated as matter of course and those  not so demanded. The first category included  (i) freedom from arrest (ii) freedom of speech (iii) right to access to crown (iv) the right of having most favourable construction placed upon its proceedings. The second category included (i) the right to provide for the due composition of its own body (ii) the right to regulate its own body (iii) right to exclude strangers (iv) right to prohibit publication of its debates  (v) right to enforce observation of its privileges by fine, imprisonment and expulsion.

Right to freedom of speech was of utmost importance for member of House of Commons. But sometimes it caused wrath of the Crown. One of the reasons for secrecy of proceedings of House of Commons was to protect themselves from Sovereign. This object could be achieved by prohibiting the publication of any debate and excluding the strangers. Thus, these privileges flow from right to freedom of speech of member of House of Commons.

The Supreme Court observed that House of Commons had, at the commencement of our constitution, the power or privilege of prohibiting the publication of even a true and faithful report of debates and proceedings that take place within the house. Article 194 (3) confers all such powers, privileges and immunities on the House of Legislature of States as Article 105 (3) does on the Houses of Parliament.  The Supreme Court observed that our constitution clearly provided that until Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, makes a law defining the powers, privileges and immunities of the House, its members and Committees, they shall have all the powers, privileges, and immunities and as yet to deny them powers, privileges and immunities   after finding that the House of Commons had them at the relevant time, will be not to interpret the Constitution but to re-make it.

The Supreme Court held that provisions of freedom of speech referred under Article 194 (1) is different from freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and cannot be cut down in any way by any law contemplated under Article 19 (2). The Supreme Court held that harmonious construction has to adopted and provisions of 19 (1) (a) which are general must yield to Article 194 (1) and latter part of clause (3) which are special.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition.

___________________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *