Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1173 (MP)

Arun Sehlot v. M. P. Vidhan Sabha

2010-11-24

AJIT SINGH, SANJAY YADAV

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on admission. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 8-7-2010 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court whereby he has dismissed the Appellants' Writ Petition No. 12018/2010 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Appellant No. 1 is the Editor-in-Chief of newspaper "Raj Express" and Appellant No. 2 is its Senior Resident Editor of Madhya Pradesh Zone. On 19-3-2010 the Appellants published a news item in the "Raj Express" naming some of the members of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly that they were wrongly drawing the travelling allowances contrary to the provisions of rules applicable to them. According to the Appellants, they had published the said news on the basis of documents obtained by them under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly itself. Some of the members of Legislative Assembly felt offended with the news publication and made complaints against the Appellants alleging breach of privilege. On these complaints notices were issued to the Appellants in response to which, instead of filing a reply, they sought several documents. But by communication dated 8-7-2010 the Director of Legislative Assembly informed the Appellants that the complaints filed by the Members of Legislative Assembly against them have been forwarded to the Privilege Committee. Aggrieved, the Appellants rushed to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 12018/2010 challenging the proceedings of Privilege Committee initiated against them which the learned single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order. It is in this background the Appellants have filed the present appeal. 4. The counsel for Appellants has submitted that various important objections and issues were raised in the writ petition but the learned single Judge has not considered any of them. 5. It is in this background the Appellants have filed the present appeal. 4. The counsel for Appellants has submitted that various important objections and issues were raised in the writ petition but the learned single Judge has not considered any of them. 5. The issues raised in the writ petition primarily were (i) that for exposing fraudulent monetary illegalities committed by the Members of Legislative Assembly, the Appellants cannot be tried before the Privilege Committee; (ii) the action of Privilege Committee amounts to gagging the press and curtailing its freedom; (iii) as the publication of information had nothing to do with the proceedings of Legislative Assembly, the action against the Appellants is an abuse of process of law, and (iv) since the Privilege Committee is being chaired by a person against whom information regarding illegal drawing of travelling allowances was published, the Appellants are not likely to get a fair hearing by the Privilege Committee. 6. The learned single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsel for Appellants, dismissed the petition on the gorund that as the matter has only been referred to the Privilege Committee and no action regarding breach of privilege has yet been taken, the Appellants were at liberty to raise all the objections before that committee. The learned single Judge has also observed that the Privilege Committee will decide the objections made by the Appellants in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the rules and following the principles of natural justice. 7. Freedom of press which arises out of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is at least subject to two exceptions (i) power of judiciary to punish for contempt of Court, and (ii) power of Parliament and Legislatures to punish for breach of their privileges protected under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution (See R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1995 SC 264 Para 28(3)). The proceedings when action is taken against a person to punish him for breach of privileges of Parliament or Legislatures are quasi judicial in nature and open to judicial review (See Karnataka State v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 68 para 62). The proceedings when action is taken against a person to punish him for breach of privileges of Parliament or Legislatures are quasi judicial in nature and open to judicial review (See Karnataka State v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 68 para 62). Likewise, the tainted proceedings of Parliament or legislatures on account of substantive or gross illegality or unconstitutionality are also not protected from judicial scrutiny (See Raja Ram Pad v. Hon'ble Speaker Lok Sabha (2007) 3 SCC 184 : AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1448. The Appellants, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge, can raise all the objections which he had taken in the writ petition before the Privilege Committee. The affidavit filed by Appellants also states that proceedings before the Privilege Committee have already commenced and some of the witnesses have also been examined. 8. For these reasons, we find no merit in the writ appeal. It is accordingly dismissed summarily.