AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....untimely death of certain persons and grant of compensation. Certain orders were passed by this Court from time to time. 2. A stage came in the life span of this litigation, which is still in continuation, when the Court vide order dated 12th August, 2014, had posed the following questions:- "i) Whether before the drug was accepted to be used as a vaccine in India, the Drugs Controller General of India and the ICMR had followed the procedure for said introduction? ii) What is the action taken after the Parliamentary Committee had submitted the 72nd report on 30.08.2013? iii) What are the reasons for choosing certain places in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh? iv) What has actually caused the deaths and other ailments who had been administered the said vaccine? v) Assuming this vaccine has been administered, regard being had to the nature of the vaccine, being not an ordinary one, what steps have been taken for monitoring the same by the competent authorities of the Union of India, who are concerned with health of the nation as well as the State Governments who have an equal role in this regard? vi) The girls who were administered the vaccine, whether proper consent has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view or its expansive jurisdiction under Article 32 dealing with the public interest litigation, can advert to the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee and on that basis issue directions. After the said issue was posed, the learned counsel for the parties sought time to file written notes of submissions and argue the matter. Regard being had to importance of the matter, assistance of the learned Attorney General for India was sought. 7. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India has filed a written note of submission contending, inter alia, that the reports of the Parliamentary Standing Committee are at best external aids of construction in order to determine the surrounding circumstances or the historical facts for the purpose of discerning the mischief sought to be remedied, but not for any other purpose. He has referred to certain authorities which we shall refer to in the course of our deliberation. We may clarify that though Mr. Rohatgi has filed the written note of submissions, today we have been assisted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, Mr. A.K. Panda and Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel and Mrs. Rekha Pandey, learned counsel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e "Parliamentary Committee". For the sake of completeness, we reproduce the same:- ""Parliamentary Committee" means a Committee which is appointed or elected by the House or nominated by the Speaker and which works under the direction of the Speaker and presents its report to the House or to the Speaker and the Secretariat for which is provided by the Lok Sabha Secretariat." 11. Chapter 26 of the Rules deals with Parliamentary Committees and the matters regarding appointment, quorum, decisions of the committee, etc. There are two kinds of Parliamentary Committees: (i) Standing Committees, and (ii) Adhoc Committees. The Standing Committees are categorized by their nature of functions. The Standing Committees of the Lok Sabha are as follows:- "a) Financial Committees; b) Subject Committees or Departmentally related standing committees of the two houses; c) Houses Committee i.e. the Committees relating to the day to day business of the House; d) Enquiry Committee; e) Scrutiny Committees; f) Service Committees; vi) A list of Standing Committees of Lok Sabha along with its membership is reproduced as under: Name of Committee Number of Members Business Advis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on the report of the Committee. (3) The report of the Committee, together with the minutes of dissent, if any, shall be presented to the Houses." 14. Rule 274(3) is extremely significant, for it provides that the report of the Committee together with the Minutes of the dissent, if any, is to be presented to the House. Rule 277 stipulates that the report is to have persuasive value. The said Rule is as follows:- "277. Reports to have persuasive value.- The report of a Standing Committee shall have persuasive value and shall be treated as considered advice given by the Committee." 15. Relying on the said Rule, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the report of the Standing Committee has a persuasive value and hence, it can be taken note of for the purpose of fact finding by this Court. The learned counsel for the Union of India, on the contrary, would contend that as per the scheme of the Rules, it is meant to have persuasive value and considered as an advice given by the Standing Committee to the Parliament. 16. It is submitted on behalf of the Union of India that the Rules 277 - 279 deal with submission of the Report of the Committee and provide ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the category of Standing Committees. Ad hoc Committees are appointed for a specific purpose and they cease to exist when they finish the task assigned to them and submit a report. The principal Ad hoc Committees are the Select and Joint Committees on Bills. Railway Convention Committee, Joint Committee on Food Management in Parliament House Complex, etc. also come under the category of ad hoc Committees." 18. In the said document in respect of Standing Committees of Parliament, it has been observed:- "Standing Committees are those which are periodically elected by the House or nominated by the Speaker, Lok Sabha, or the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, singly or jointly and are permanent in nature. In terms of their functions, Standing Committees may be classified into two categories. One category of Committees like the Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs), Financial Committees etc., scrutinize the functioning of the Government as per their respective mandate. The other category of Committees like the Rules Committee, House Committee, Joint Committee on Salaries and Allowances, etc. deal with matters relating to the Houses and members." 19. We have referred to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugning the same. 23. At this stage, we may gainfully refer to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for Union of India and the contesting respondents. In A.K. Roy v. Union of India and others (1982) 1 SCC 271 , it has been held thus:- "But we find ourselves unable to intervene in a matter of this nature by issuing a mandamus to the Central Government obligating it to bring the provisions of Section 3 into force. The Parliament having left to the unfettered judgment of the Central Government the question as regards the time for bringing the provisions of the 44th Amendment into force, it is not for the court to compel the government to do that which, according to the mandate of the Parliament, lies in its discretion to do when it considers it opportune to do it. The executive is responsible to the Parliament and if the Parliament considers that the executive has betrayed its trust by not bringing any provision of the Amendment into force, it can censure the executive. It would be quite anomalous that the inaction of the executive should have the approval of the Parliament and yet we should show our disapproval of it by issuing a mandamus. The court's power of judic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not attain finality, inasmuch as it is subject to debate in the Parliament and subject to further action taken by the Parliament. 28. Inspiration has also been drawn from the authority in Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. Union of India and others (2013) 7 SCC 1, wherein it has been stated in the context of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) that the report of the CAG is always subject to Parliamentary debates and it is possible that the Parliamentary Accounts Committee can accept the Ministry's objection to the CAG report or reject the report of the CAG. What has been stated is that CAG though indisputably is an independent constitutional functionary, yet it is for the Parliament to decide whether after receiving the report, i.e. the Parliamentary Accounts Committee to make its comments on the CAG's report. The emphasis is on the areas of demarcation of power of the Parliament and its supremacy within its sphere. 29. On behalf of the Union of India, two decisions, namely, R v. Murphy (1986) 5 NSWLR 18 and Office of Government Commerce v. Information Commissioner [2008] EWHC 737 (Adnin) have been referred to highlight that there has been exclusion of di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the expression of the collective intention of the legislature as a whole, and any statement made by an individual, albeit a Minister, of the intention and objects of the Act cannot be used to cut down the generality of the words used in the statute." 35. In K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam and another AIR 1981 SC 1922 the Court while referring to the budget speech of the Minister ruled:- "Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the Mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation and the object and purpose for which the legislation is enacted. This is in accord with the recent trend in juristic thought not only in western countries but also in India that interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible. In fact there are at l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt would have to do more than take note of the fact that a certain statement was made in the House on a certain date. It would have to consider the statement or statements with a view to determining what was the true meaning of them, and what were the proper inferences to be drawn from them. This, in my judgment, would be contrary to art 9 of the Bill of Rights. It would be doing what Blackstone said was not to be done, namely to examine, discuss and adjudge on a matter which was being considered in Parliament. Moreover, it would be an invasion by the court of the right of every member of Parliament to free speech in the House with the possible adverse effects referred to by Browne J." 39. In this regard, a reference to a three-Judge Bench decision in State Bank of India through General Manager v. National Housing Bank and others (2013) 16 SCC 538 would be apposite. The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred under Section 10 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act 27 of 1992. In the said case, this Court noticed that the learned Judge of the Special Court had extensively relied upon the Second Interim of the Janakiraman Committee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port of the Janakiraman Committee is not evidence within the meaning of Evidence Act which the Special Court is bound to follow." 40. We have referred to the said authority as this Court has thought it appropriate to state following the precedents that 30 See the Janakiraman Committee's first interim report, May 1992, p. 1. the report of a statutory committee cannot be received as evidence of facts stated in the report. 41. Having dwelled upon this aspect, we may refer to certain relevant Articles of the Constitution. Article 105 deals with with powers, privileges, etc. of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof. To have a complete picture, the said Article is reproduced in entirety:- "105. Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament. (2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Parliament shall not discuss as regards the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties, except upon a motion been presented before the President of India praying for removal of the Judge as provided in the Constitution. Thus, the discussion of the Parliament is restricted by a constitutional provision. 46. Article 122 stipulates a restraint on courts to inquire into proceedings of the Parliament. The said Article being absolutely significant is reproduced below:- "122. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament.- (1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. (2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers." 47. The purpose of referring to the aforesaid Articles is that while exercising the power of judicial review or to place reliance on the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this action if he had been precluded from challenging the evidence produced to the parliamentary committees on behalf of Mr. Hamilton. Had it not been for section 13, the court should, in my judgment, have stayed the libel action brought by Mr. Hamilton by making an order under paragraph 2 of the summons. However, section 13 does apply to this case and provides a complete answer to it." 49. We will be failing in our duty if we do not note another submission of the learned Solicitor General that for issuance of a writ of mandamus, it is primary to establish that one has a right and, in the case at hand, an effort has been made to rely on the Parliamentary Standing Committee's report to create a right which is legally not permissible. 50. The controversy has to be seen from the perspective of judicial review. The basic principle of judicial review is to ascertain the propriety of the decision making process on the parameters of reasonableness and propriety of the executive decisions. We are not discussing about the parameters pertaining to the challenge of amendments to the Constitution or the constitutionality of a statute. When a writ of mandamus is sought on the foundation....