High Court of Bombay Hears Challenge to Legislative Privilege Conviction; Considers Maintainability and Procedural Fairness Under Constitutional Provisions. Breach of Privilege Motion Based on Alleged Unparliamentary Remarks Against Ministers Led to Imprisonment Order; Questions of Natural Justice, Right to Counsel, and Judicial Review Raised Under Articles 21 and 226.

A criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed for breach of privilege of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly.

The petitioner sought a writ to quash the impugned order dated 11th/12th April 2006 sentencing him to 90 days imprisonment for breach of privilege.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced after a privilege motion was moved based on a news report alleging he used unparliamentary words and abused the Deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister.

The Special Privilege Committee recommended a 90-day jail term, which was unanimously accepted by the House; the petitioner was arrested on 12 April 2006; a division bench of the High Court directed the matter to a larger bench, which was constituted to hear the writ petition.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a conviction for breach of privilege of the Legislature. What is the scope of judicial review over proceedings of the Legislature and its Privilege Committee, particularly in light of Articles 212 and 194. Whether the procedure adopted by the Privilege Committee violated principles of natural justice, including the denial of legal representation. Whether the impugned order infringed the petitioner's fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Whether the order was malafide or capricious, warranting judicial interference.

Petitioner: There was a clear breach of the principles of natural justice; the request to engage an advocate was wrongfully refused; the committee did not follow the laid-down procedure and acted in breach of the Evidence Act and CrPC; the complainant took part in the proceedings, acting as prosecutor and judge; extraneous material was relied upon without notice; the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226. Amicus Curiae (Senior Counsel Iqbal Chagla): The writ petition is maintainable; the court can examine the existence of a privilege but cannot examine internal proceedings due to the bar of Article 212; the court can set aside an order if it is malafide or capricious; interference is possible under Article 21 but not under Article 19(1)(a). Amicus Curiae (Advocate General Ravi Kadam): The court can consider the extent and existence of the privilege but not the merits; Article 212 bars looking into internal procedure; the House can deviate from its own rules; no malafide can be attributed to the House; the petitioner intimidated members, breaching the privilege of free speech under Article 194(1); the right to a lawyer is discretionary and its denial is not justiciable.

The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is seeking appropriate writ to quash the impugned order dated 11th/12th April 2006 whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 90 days for the breach of privilege by the petitioner. The Privilege Committee, however, did not accept the request made by the petitioner for engaging an advocate and framed four issues... It was open for this Court to consider the extent and existence of the privilege but not the merits of the decision. He submitted that, however, in view of the specific bar imposed by Article 212, the Court did not have jurisdiction to look into the internal procedure adopted by the Assembly and that it was open for the House for the Privilege Committee to deviate from the procedure which was prescribed under the Rules...

On 31/3/2005, a news item in the daily 'Sakal' reported that the petitioner made unparliamentary remarks about ministers. On the same day, MLA Sudhir Mungantiwar moved a breach of privilege motion under Rule 272. The Speaker referred the matter to the Special Privilege Committee. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, who submitted a reply on 6/6/2005. The petitioner requested to engage an advocate and summon witnesses, but the Committee denied the advocate request. The Committee examined two witnesses and allowed the petitioner to cross-examine them and produce his own witnesses. The Committee submitted its report recommending 90 days' imprisonment for breach of privilege; the House accepted it unanimously. The petitioner applied for a copy of the report and later used the Right to Information Act to obtain documents. The Speaker issued a warrant of arrest, and the petitioner was arrested on 12/4/2006. The petitioner filed the present writ petition. A division bench of this Court directed the matter to a larger bench, which was constituted by the Honourable Chief Justice. The larger bench heard the matter on 26/6/2006 and 28/6/2006, with the Advocate General and Senior Counsel appearing as amici curiae, and no appearance for the respondents. The judgment was delivered on 4/7/2006.

• Constitution of India: Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, Article 194, Article 208, Article 212, Article 226
• Maharashtra Legislative Rules: Rule 272
• Right to Information Act: Not specifically mentioned
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Not specifically mentioned
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Not specifically mentioned