Madras HC Revives Breach Of Privilege Notices Issued To CM Stalin & Other MLAs, Says Proceedings Didn't Lapse Merely Due To Change In Govt

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan made it clear that issues such as breach of privilege could not be washed away with a new assembly. The court highlighted that such issues should be deliberated for the people's best interest.

“The powers of the Committee of Privileges and the powers of the Hon'ble Speaker of the House would not lapse merely on account of change of Government. The notice issued by the Privilege Committee is relating to disciplinary affairs of the House. Therefore, the proceedings will not lapse merely for the reason that the opposition party turned to be the ruling party. The nature of proceedings require a decision to be taken on merits by following due process contemplated under the Assembly Rules,” the court said.

Though it was argued that the breach of privilege proceedings lapse with the dissolution of the assembly, the court noted that if such a view was to be accepted, the purpose of granting privileges would become meaningless. The court highlighted that in such situations, the members may end up not taking the privileges seriously thus leading to utter chaos.

“If the argument of the Learned Senior Counsel Mr.N.R.Elango is adopted, that Breach of privilege lapses with dissolution of an Assembly, the very purpose behind privileges granted to the members of the Assembly become meaningless. Utter chaos may ensue where every member will be motivated to not take the privileges seriously thereby leading to breaches and after the end of the term, on dissolution of Assembly, all such proceedings lapse and this shall go on in an endless fashion,” the court observed.

The court made the observations on an appeal preferred by the then Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, challenging a single judge's order quashing the show cause notices issued to MK Stalin and other MLAs.

While the Advocate Generally, appearing for the appellants, initially submitted that the proceedings lapsed on account of expiry of the term of Assembly, he also admitted that the disciplinary matters may not die on account of expiry of the term of Assembly. On the other hand, for the contending respondents, Senior Advocate NR Elango argued that the proceedings would lapse and that there was no scope for continuing the proceedings.

Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, appearing for some respondents contended that if the show cause notice was issued in due compliance with the Assembly Rules by the privilege committee and on account of the lis pendency before the court, the committee was not in a position to conclude the proceedings.

The court noted that the single judge had failed to consider the argument of premature filing of the writ petition at the stage of show cause notice. The court observed that the Privilege Committee was not the final authority but only a recommending authority and was empowered to file a report based on the recommendation which was subject to further deliberation by the Assembly.

The court further observed that the court's interference in issues pertaining to the conduct of Members inside the assembly was unwarranted and the scope of judicial review was to be applied sparingly as per Articles 212 and 194(3) of the Constitution.

The court added that the show cause notices related to the procedures followed by the Members and their conduct inside the assembly which were questions to be deliberated by the Committee. The court observed that in case of any irregularity in the order passed by the committee, the members were free to approach the court but instead approaching the court at the initial stage was premature and could not be entertained.

The court thus deemed it fit to set aside the order passed by the single judge and asked the respondents to submit their explanations in response to the Show Cause Notice. The court asked the Secretary of the TN Legislative Assembly, the Speaker and the Privilege committee to proceed with the show cause notice by following due process under the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly rules and take final decision as expeditiously as possible.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. P.S. Raman, Advocate General assisted by Mr. A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for M/s.Manuraj, Mr.V.Ragavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.I.S.Inbadurai and Mr.P.S.Siva Shanmugasundaram

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 293

Case Title: The Secretary, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly v P Sivakumar (batch cases)

Case No: W.A.No.701 of 2021