Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a writ petition under Article 32 filed by the editor of an English daily newspaper, Searchlight of Patna, challenging a show cause notice from the Committee of Privileges of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The notice alleged breach of privileges of the Speaker and the Assembly for publishing in its entirety a speech delivered in the Assembly, portions of which the Speaker had directed to be expunged. The petitioner contended that the notice and proposed action violated his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and personal liberty under Article 21, relying on the freedom of the press. The respondents relied on Article 194(3), claiming that legislative proceedings were not usually meant to be published and that publication of expunged portions was never permissible and constituted a clear breach of privilege. The central legal issues were whether the British House of Commons could entirely prohibit publication of its proceedings or expunged portions, and if such power existed and was conferred on the State Legislature under Article 194(3), whether it could prevail over the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). The majority of the Constitution Bench held that at the commencement of the Constitution, the British House of Commons possessed the power to prohibit publication of even true and faithful reports of debates, and with greater reason, inaccurate or garbled versions. This power was conferred on State Legislatures by Article 194(3) and on Parliament by Article 105(3). The Court held that Articles 194(3) and 105(3) stood in the same supreme position as Part III and could not be affected by Article 13. Applying the principle of harmonious construction, the general provisions of Article 19(1)(a) yielded to the special provisions of Article 194(1) and the latter part of its clause (3). Consequently, Article 19(1)(a) was of no avail to the petitioner. The Court also held that no breach of Article 21 occurred because Article 194(3) read with rules framed under Article 208 laid down a procedure, and deprivation of personal liberty would be in accordance with that procedure. It further ruled that the Court could not prescribe time limits for moving a privilege motion or for the Committee's report, which were matters for the Speaker and the House respectively. The effect of the Speaker's expunction order was that the portion was deemed not spoken; publication of the whole speech could be regarded as a perverted and unfaithful report and prima facie breach of privilege, though the Assembly alone had authority to judge actual breach. Subba Rao J. dissented, holding that the second part of Article 194(3) was transitory and that in case of conflict, Article 19(1)(a) must prevail over legislative privilege. The dissenting judge found that at the commencement of the Constitution, the House of Commons had no privilege to prevent publication of a correct and faithful report, only a limited privilege against mala fide garbled publications, and since no mala fides were shown, the petitioner should succeed. The majority decision effectively upheld the legislative privilege over the fundamental right, dismissing the petitioner's challenge.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Legislative Privileges - Power to Prohibit Publication - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 194(3), 105(3) - The Court examined whether the British House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution had the power to prohibit publication of its proceedings, including expunged portions. The majority held that such power existed, extending even to true and faithful reports, and with greater reason to inaccurate or garbled versions. This power was conferred on State Legislatures by Article 194(3) and on Parliament by Article 105(3). Held that the State Legislature had the privilege to prohibit publication of expunged proceedings. B) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Conflict Between Article 19(1)(a) and Legislative Privileges - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 19(1)(a), 194(3), 105(3), 13 - The majority held that Articles 194(3) and 105(3) stood in the same supreme position as Part III and could not be affected by Article 13. Applying the principle of harmonious construction, the general provision of Article 19(1)(a) yielded to the special provisions of Article 194(1) and the latter part of clause (3). Held that Article 19(1)(a) was of no avail to the petitioner. C) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Press - Scope and Extent - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19(1)(a) - The Court reiterated that liberty of the press was implicit in the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19(1)(a), including freedom of circulation. However, the liberty of the press in India flowed from this freedom of a citizen and stood on no higher footing; no privilege attached to the press as such. Held that the press enjoyed no immunity beyond the citizen's fundamental right. D) Constitutional Law - Personal Liberty - Procedure Established by Law - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 21, 194(3), 208 - The petitioner contended that the notice threatened his personal liberty. The majority held that Article 194(3) read with rules framed by the Bihar Legislative Assembly under Article 208 laid down the procedure for enforcing privileges, and any deprivation of personal liberty resulting from proceedings before the Committee of Privileges was in accordance with procedure established by law. Held that there was no breach of Article 21. E) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Time Limits for Privilege Motion and Committee Report - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 194(3) - The Court held that it was not for the Supreme Court to prescribe any particular period for moving a privilege motion; that was for the Speaker alone to decide. Similarly, the time within which the Committee of Privileges was to submit its report was a matter between the House and its Committee, and the party under investigation had no say. Held that procedural time limits were within legislative domain. F) Constitutional Law - Legislative Privileges - Effect of Expunction Order - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 194(3) - The majority observed that the effect in law of the Speaker's order to expunge a portion of a speech might be as if that portion had not been spoken. A report of the whole speech despite the Speaker's order might be regarded as a perverted and unfaithful report and prima facie constitute a breach of privilege. However, whether there had in fact been a breach was a matter for the Assembly alone to judge. Held that the Assembly retained final authority on actual breach. G) Constitutional Law - Dissenting Opinion - Prevalence of Fundamental Rights over Legislative Privileges - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 19(1)(a), 194(3), 13(2) - Subba Rao J. held that the second part of Article 194(3) was a transitory provision and had no higher sanctity than the first. Laws made under the first part would be void to the extent they contravened Article 19(1)(a) unless saved by Article 19(2), and similarly powers under the second part could not be free from fundamental rights. On harmonious construction, Article 19(1)(a) must prevail over Article 194(3) in case of conflict. Held that the privilege must yield to fundamental rights; and since no mala fides were disclosed, the petitioner was entitled to succeed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Legislature, exercising privileges under Article 194(3), could prohibit publication of proceedings including portions expunged by the Speaker, and whether such privilege prevailed over the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a); also whether the notice violated Article 21.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court, by majority, held that the State Legislature had the power under Article 194(3) to prohibit publication of proceedings including expunged portions, and that this power prevailed over the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Article 19(1)(a) was of no avail to the petitioner. There was no breach of Article 21 because the procedure under Article 194(3) read with rules framed under Article 208 constituted procedure established by law. The Court refused to prescribe time limits for privilege motions or committee reports, leaving those to the Speaker and the House. The effect of the Speaker's expunction order was that the portion was deemed not spoken; publication of the whole speech could be regarded as a perverted and unfaithful report and prima facie breach of privilege, but whether actual breach occurred was for the Assembly alone to judge. Subba Rao J. dissented, holding that Article 19(1)(a) prevailed over Article 194(3) and that the petitioner was entitled to succeed because no mala fides were shown. The majority effectively dismissed the petitioner's challenge.
Law Points
- Liberty of press is implicit in freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)
- no privilege attaches to press as such
- at commencement of Constitution
- British House of Commons had power to prohibit publication of proceedings
- Article 194(3) and Article 105(3) stand in same supreme position as Part III and are not affected by Article 13
- special provisions prevail over general fundamental rights by harmonious construction
- deprivation of personal liberty under legislative privilege procedure is in accordance with law under Article 21
- expunction order renders speech portion as if not spoken
- publication prima facie breach
- whether breach occurred is for legislature to judge
