- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- 'I'm On Demurrer. I May Have Lied,...
'I'm On Demurrer. I May Have Lied, Defamed - Everything May be True. But House Still Could Not Issue Notice Or Even Investigate': Sr. Adv. Harish Salve, For Arnab Goswami, Tells SC
Mehal Jain
1 Oct 2020 9:54 AM IST
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in a plea by Arnab Goswami, Journalist and Editor-in-Chief of Republic Media Network, challenging the breach of privilege motion against him by Maharashtra Assembly & Legislative Council.A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramanian issued notice to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and stated that the...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in a plea by Arnab Goswami, Journalist and Editor-in-Chief of Republic Media Network, challenging the breach of privilege motion against him by Maharashtra Assembly & Legislative Council.
A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramanian issued notice to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and stated that the matter will be returnable in a week.
"This is a petition against notice issued by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for purported breach of privilege", began Senior Counsel Harish Salve for Goswami.
"Is Maharashtra before us?", asked Chief justice S. A.Bobde.
"No, this matter has come for the first time...", replied Mr. Salve.
"But that doesn't mean...(cutting off)...okay...", said the CJ.
"But the Solicitor General is here (referring to SG Tushar Mehta). Your Lordships may seek his assistance. The present case is factually the same to the N. Ram case, where the question whether the privilege of the assembly can extend to matters outside of the House has been referred to a seven-judge bench, Just because sharp language or derogatory language is employed against the CM, it doesn't become a breach of privilege...it raises an interesting question of whether Articles 19 and 21 can override the privilege motion....N. Ram, in his fallacity, had written about the former Tamil Nadu CM and the house had issued notice for breach of privilege to him and Your Lordships had protected him...", submitted Mr. Salve.
"We understand the gravity, but only a show-cause notice has been issued here...no motion for breach of privilege has been initiated", observed the CJ.
"I am on the issue of jurisdiction. They cannot even issue notice. They cannot even investigate...once I am out of the House, they can't do that", argued Mr. Salve.
"This is unlike the Eenadu case. In Eenadu, the commissioner had a warrant of arrest from the Legislature and the SC had stayed the motion for breach. So the editor went on leave", remarked the CJ.
"The privilege motion is dealt with by the Committee of Privileges...have they someone to answer the charges?", inquired the CJ.
Indicating the notice, Mr. Salve asserted that the communication is always from an officer only. Stating that the notice had been served by the Secretary, Maharashtra Legislature Secretariat, he read out its contents: "You have been found indulging in recurrent discussions, falsely and maliciously, maligning the CM".
"On whose directions was the notice issued?", asked the CJ. "The Speaker directed to proceed with it. And also to procure the original videos", replied Mr. Salve.
"He may have asked the Committee to do that. Has the Committee even looked into the matter?", asked the CJ.
"There was a whole debate in the House and then an action was taken...Mr. (Pratap) Sarnaik (Shiv Sena MLA) requested motion for breach of privilege. All members debated. And then notice was issued", said Mr. Salve.
"So even a show-cause notice, prior to determination of whether motion for breach of privilege should be initiated, cannot be proceeded with?", asked the CJ.
"I am on demurrer...I may have lied, I may have defamed, everything might be true, but the House could not have issued notice to me", replied Mr. Salve.
"Why don't you say this in your reply to the show-cause notice?", questioned the CJ.
"That would mean acceding to the jurisdiction of the House, which does not extend to summoning persons for acts outside the House" replied Mr. Salve.
"But most of such actions would happen outside only. What if someone says that all members of the assembly are criminals?", asked the CJ.
"Then the person may be sued for defamation. It is not breach of privilege if I haven't obstructed the working of the House...breach is only for interference in the functioning of the House as a member of the House", responded Mr. Salve.
"So it is not like contempt of court?", asked the CJ.
Mr. Salve replied in the negative.
"So if someone calls names to the members of the assembly, if someone says that a Bill has been passed for corrupt motive, there would be no breach if the same happens outside the House?", asked the CJ.
Mr. Salve sought to draw the bench's attention to the constitutional provision on interference in the working of the House.
"So 'interference' need not be physical always...Only if someone comes and stops a member from speaking will it be a breach? Must there be a physical gagging?", aked the CJ.
"If someone does a 'gherao' outside the House, preventing a member from entering, that shall be a breach", advanced Mr. Salve.
"But that is also outside the House? If someone stops a member from entering to refrain him from casting his vote in a particular way, that action will also be outside the House", observed the CJ.
Conceding that would tantamount to a breach, Mr. Salve insisted that 'interference' is an act that prevents a member from performing his functions- "one, I cannot stop one from speaking in the House; two, I cannot stop one from discharging his duty"
"If you criticise a member, will that not intimidate his performance? If you say the minister is lying, will that not obstruct the discharge of his duty?", the CJ wanted to know.
"No, he can go into the House and refute the allegations and say that they are rubbish", replied Mr. Salve.
"You can't judge a man's action by the response that can be given", observed the CJ.
"The court may say you are coming dangerously close to affecting the working in the House", replied Mr. Salve.
"We will tell you that it is certainly an arguable point, but we doubt if it has gone through the committee", said the CJ.
"And if at all it has, the court may not go into that...That is the working of the House, which is in its domain", replied Mr. Salve.
"When a member of the House alleges breach by another member of the House, he tells the Speaker and then the Speaker refers the matter to the Committee, which issues a show-cause notice...that is how a motion for breach of privilege starts", said the CJ.
"This is what happened with the facebook MD just last week. The Delhi Assembly issued notice...the House Committee had referred it to the Privilege Committee", said Mr. Salve.
"Correct. That is the procedure. We will issue notice and then we will see. There might be nothing", said the CJ.
Mr. Salve requested if the notie could be withdrawn altogether, expressing, "I am afraid they may do something"
"No, nothing will happen...we'll make it returnable in one week", assured the CJ.
Next Story
