Summary Of Constitution Bench Judgment On Parliamentary Standing Committee Reports [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that placing reliance on Parliamentary Standing Committee Reports by Courts does not constitute a breach of Parliamentary privilege.The judgment was delivered by a five-Judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Ashok Bhushan.Factual matrixThe Court was hearing Public Interest Litigations, one of which was filed by one Ms. Kalpana Mehta, who had challenged usage of two vaccines- Gardasil and Cervarix- on tribal women in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat for treatment of cervical cancer. She had alleged that the vaccines, marketed in India by MSD Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and GlaxoSmithKline Ltd., were hazardous, and were being administered to such women without making them aware of the possible consequences of the same.Initially, the matter was being heard by a two-Judge Bench. During the course of the hearing, the Petitioners had drawn the Court's attention to a report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. The Committee had, in its 81st report in 2014, concluded that a PATH/Government of AP/Government of Gujarat HPV vaccine experiment constituted "a serious breach of medical ethics (and)… a clear-cut violation of the human rights of these girl children and adolescents."While opining that Parliamentary Standing Committee report cannot be relied upon in support of a factual proposition, the two-Judge Bench had then referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. It had framed the following two questions for its consideration:"Whether in a litigation filed before this Court either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Court can refer to and place reliance upon the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee? Whether such a Report can be looked at for the purpose of reference and, if so, can there be restrictions for the purpose of reference regard being had to the concept of parliamentary privilege and the delicate balance between the constitutional institutions that Articles 105, 121 and 122 of the Constitution conceive?"CJI Misra's opinion (for himself and Justice Khanwilkar)Justice Misra began by discussing the concepts of the supremacy of the Constitution and constitutional limitation, separation of powers, the ambit and scope of judicial review, judicial restraint, the progressive method adopted by the Court while interpreting fundamental rights and the expansive conception of such inherent rights. He also deliberated upon the interpretation of other constitutional provisions that really do not touch the area of fundamental rights but are fundamental for constitutional governance.He then proceeded to acknowledge that the Court was currently concerned with the interpretation of Articles 122 and 105 of the Constitution of India. He noted that reports of parliamentary committees have various facets, namely, statement of fact made to the committee, statement of policy made to the committee, statements of fact made by Members of Parliament in Parliament and inference drawn from facts and findings of fact and law. Therefore, he opined that it needed to be ascertained as to which of these aspects of the reports can be placed reliance upon.Thereafter, referring to various precedents wherein such reports had already been taken note of, he concluded:"(i) Parliamentary Standing Committee report can be taken aid of for the purpose of interpretation of a statutory provision wherever it is so necessary and also it can be taken note of as existence of a historical fact. (ii) Judicial notice can be taken of the Parliamentary Standing Committee report under Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act and it is admissible under Section 74 of the said Act. (iii) In a litigation filed either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court can take on record the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee. However, the report cannot be impinged or challenged in a court of law. (iv) Where the fact is contentious, the petitioner can always collect the facts from many a source and produce such facts by way of affidavits, and the Court can render its verdict by way of independent adjudication. (v) The Parliamentary Standing Committee report being in the public domain can invite fair comments and criticism from the citizens as in such a situation, the citizens do not really comment upon any member of the Parliament to invite the hazard of violation of parliamentary privilege."Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's opinion (for himself and Justice Sikri)After an analysis of various concepts, including separation of powers and judicial review, Justice Chandrachud asserted that the modern doctrine of separation of powers has moved away from a 'one organ – one function' approach, to "a more realistic perspective which recognizes the complementarily in the work which is performed by institutions of governance".Noting that it is ultimately for the Court in each case to determine the relevance...

Summary Of Constitution Bench Judgment On Parliamentary Standing Committee Reports [Read Judgment]

Apoorva Mandhani

Tags