Facebook Cannot Invoke Article 32; Ajit Mohan's Rights Not Violated : Delhi Assembly Tells Supreme Court

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Assembly panel concluded his submissions today in the plea filed by Facebook India's Vice President, Mr. Ajit Mohan challenging the summons issued to him by the Delhi Legislative Assembly's Committee on Peace and Harmony. A bench comprising of Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari continued to hear Mr. Mohan's plea for the third consecutive week. Beginning his submissions in the first half of the proceeding today, Dr. Singhvi concluded by submitting that the petitioner, by filing an Art. 32 petition in the Apex Court, wants an advance ruling with respect to a committee which is at the stage of summoning witness. According to Dr. Singhvi, the role and functioning of the Committee, as noted in the Kalpana Mehta judgment, cannot be limited to public order only. "Can you limit the legislature only to public order? Can you limit that to one entry? Is it not constitutionally wrong and misleading to put a narrow straight-jacket?" Singhvi submitted. During the course of hearing, Justice Kaul had sought clarification from Dr. Singhvi on the aspect of encroachment of jurisdiction of entries vested to the Delhi Legislative Assembly. To this, Dr. Singhvi requested the bench to take note of his submission wherein he dictated: "In view of the constitutional exclusion of entries 1, 2 and 18, List 2, sanctified by the Supreme Court Constitution Bench in the NCT judgment, the Respondent has never and does not ever intent to encroach upon this constitutional demarcation and the petitioners are merely tilting at windmills in advance." Furthermore, Dr. Singhvi went ahead to argue that the Courts cannot have a restricted approach as far as interpreting the powers of the legislative assembly under various lists are concerned. "There will always be sub-laps but that cannot be restricted by your lordships" Singhvi argued. While relying heavily on the Kalpana Mehta judgment in backing up his argument on functioning of the committee, Singhvi argued that parliamentary committees have an inquisitorial power which includes the power to summon witnesses and recording of their evidences on oath. However, according to Singhvi, in the present matter, that power is not even exercised as the case is at a premature stage of summoning. "That inquisitorial power is useless unless you summon somebody and asks questions. That power after stage 2, stage 3, stage 4 and stage 5 may result in a product. Then that product will be judged constitutionally. Not on the stage of summon, recommendation or discussion. If the ultimate product is noxious, your lordships will strike it down. But on stages of summon on discussion, how can that be struck down?" Singhvi remarked at the outset. Lastly, arguing on the jurisdictional aspect of the matter, Singhvi argued that Facebook, being a corporation, has no locus to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 and to get over that difficulty, the writ has been filed with Ajit Mohan, the Facebook Vice President, as the first petitioner. However, Mohan has not been individually affected. The substituted summons sent by the Assembly requires only appearance by a senior responsible person from Facebook, and not necessarily Mohan.Moreover, it was the case of Dr. Singhvi that Mr. Mohan is not a shareholder of Facebook or Facebook India, petitioner 2 and 3 respectively and that corporations alone cannot invoke Art. 32 jurisdiction. "Summons are not subjected to Art. 21 otherwise the constitutional structure will come to a standstill. Where is the question of Art. 21 violation here? There is no privacy of a corporation. So long as Mr. Ajit Mohan doesn't show that his privacy rights are violated or I have asked him self incriminating questions, absent that, why are your lordships asked to answer on Art. 19(1)(a) because they have raised some abstract questions of law? It is not even a maintainable Art. 32 petition." Singhvi submitted. At this juncture, Justice Kaul intervened and asked Dr. Singhvi about the remedy available to Facebook in case it was not intending of appearing before this committee. To this, Dr. Singhvi responded "The remedy is that the committee can refer the case to speaker. Then the speaker can consider it and refer it to an independent adjudicatory body being the privilege committee. Summons may then be issued. There are 4 to 5 stages I can think of now." After conclusion of submissions by Dr. Singhvi, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan began his submissions today on behalf of the Committee of Peace and Harmony. Before beginning the submissions, Justice Kaul sought clarification from Dr. Dhavan if he wanted to have Mr. Salve's views on the fresh substituted notice issued in the matter. To this, Dr. Dhavan expressed his discontent by arguing "Why has a substituted notice been given when the entire argument was over Mr. Ajit Mohan's rights? I was given pressure from the bench. I ...

Facebook Cannot Invoke Article 32; Ajit Mohan's Rights Not Violated : Delhi Assembly Tells Supreme Court

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags