1960 (8) TMI 69 - SC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses petition challenging legislative proceedings; upholds privileges and bars re-litigation.

Pandit M. SM Sharma Versus Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha And Others

The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner had no fundamental right to publish legislative proceedings against the Legislature's ... Editor of the Searchlight, an English daily newspaper published from Patna, was called upon to show cause before the Committee of Privileges of the Bihar Legislative Assembly why he should not be proceeded against for the breach of privilege of the Speaker and the Assembly for publishing an inaccurate account of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. He moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for quashing the said proceeding and the question for decision in substance was whether the said privilege conferred by Art. 194(3) of the Constitution was subject to the fundamental - Held, that the general principles of res judicata applied and the judgment of this Court could not be allowed to be reopened and must bind the petitioner and the Legislative Assembly of Bihar and the reconstitution of the Committee of Privileges in the meantime could make no difference. Issues Involved:1. Fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) vs. Legislative privileges under Article 194(3).2. Application of res judicata.3. Validity of legislative procedures.4. Timeliness of proceedings for breach of privilege.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression vs. Legislative Privileges:The petitioner, a journalist and editor, contended that his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution included the freedom to publish and circulate reports of legislative proceedings. He argued that the Bihar Legislative Assembly's privilege to prohibit the publication of its proceedings contravened this fundamental right. The Court reaffirmed its earlier decision in M. S. M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, holding that under Article 194(3), a State Legislature has the same powers, privileges, and immunities as the House of Commons of the UK at the commencement of the Constitution. This includes the power to prohibit the publication of its proceedings. The majority judgment dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner had no fundamental right to publish the proceedings of the Bihar Legislature against the Assembly's privilege to control such publications.2. Application of Res Judicata:The respondents argued that the present writ petition was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the issues raised had already been decided in the previous writ petition (No. 122 of 1958). The Court agreed, stating that the principle of res judicata applies to questions that have been raised and decided after full contest, even if the parties or the subject matter are not exactly the same. The Committee of Privileges, despite being reconstituted, was considered the same entity as it was constituted by the same Legislative Assembly. The Court held that the previous decision binds the petitioner and the Legislative Assembly, thereby precluding the re-litigation of the same issues.3. Validity of Legislative Procedures:The petitioner contended that the legislative procedures were not regular and not strictly in accordance with the law. The Court dismissed this contention, citing Article 212 of the Constitution, which precludes judicial interference in the proceedings of the Legislature. The Court emphasized that the Legislature has the jurisdiction to conduct its own business and that procedural irregularities do not warrant judicial intervention under Article 32. The Court also noted that the proceedings were still ongoing, making the contention premature.4. Timeliness of Proceedings for Breach of Privilege:The petitioner argued that the proceedings for breach of privilege, which began in May 1957, had become stale due to multiple prorogations of the Assembly. The Court rejected this argument, clarifying that prorogation suspends but does not dissolve the business of the Assembly. The Assembly remains the same, and pending proceedings can be revived upon reassembly. The Court referenced May's Parliamentary Practice to support its position that prorogation only interrupts proceedings, which can be resumed later.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had no fundamental right to publish legislative proceedings against the privileges of the Legislature. The principle of res judicata barred the re-litigation of issues already decided. The Court also upheld the validity of legislative procedures and rejected the argument that the proceedings had become stale due to prorogation. There was no order as to costs.