Parliament has the power to initiate contempt for breach of privilege even for general statements if they are tantamount to denigrating or scandalising Members of Parliament and the institution, say legal experts.
Article 105 (3) of the Constitution empowers both Houses to deal with the conduct and expressions of outsiders who, for good reasons, are found to have violated the privileges and immunities of the House, and this exercise is based on the principles of the British House of Commons.
Referring to privilege notices issued against Team Anna Member Kiran Bedi and actor Om Puri for their statements against MPs, the former Secretary-General of Lok Sabha, Subash Kashyap, an expert in constitutional law and parliamentary affairs, says: “Parliament derives its powers to initiate contempt for breach of privilege under Article 105 of the Constitution.”
According to him it is not necessary that breach of privilege arise only if “derogatory statements” are attributable to a particular Member or Members of the House. Even general statements — if they were derogatory or defamatory and if Members of Parliament felt that they lowered the dignity of Parliament — could warrant the issuing of contempt notice for breach of privilege and the matter could be referred to the Privileges Committee.
Mr. Kashyap says “normally such contempt notices are disposed of if persons making the statements tender apology. If not, the committee will issue contempt notice to the persons concerned, seeking their comments, and they can give their defence or justify the statements or tender an apology. The committee can dispose of the matter if it is satisfied with the reply; if not, it can call them to appear before the committee, either in person or through their lawyers to present their case.”
Since the committee enjoys quasi-judicial power, it can issue a warning, admonish or reprimand the contemnors. The committee, if satisfied that the statements made would be tantamount to a lowering of the dignity of the House and its Members, can even send the contemnors to jail and normally the maximum punishment would be till the last sitting of the House.
Constitutional expert and senior advocate K.K. Venugopal says: “Parliament has the power to initiate contempt for breach of privilege. To paint the MPs with the same brush in a manner which will shake the confidence of the public in their representatives elected to Parliament would be a breach of privilege. In the present case, it is for both Houses of Parliament to decide whether the statements made would satisfy this test or not.”
Restraint
Former Solicitor General and senior advocate T.R. Andhyarujina is of the view that Parliament should generally ignore such statements and that, by and large, Parliament, unlike State Legislatures, had shown great restraint in initiating contempt for breach of privilege.
According to Mr. Andhyarujina, courts could also intervene if these persons challenged the contempt notice in court, if something was done by Parliament in violation of Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution. On the powers to Parliament, he says: “Both Houses of Parliament have the power to initiate contempt if the Members feel that the two persons, by their ‘derogatory statements', have run down or denigrated the Parliament. In the present case, it would be better for Parliament to ignore these statements.”
Senior counsel and former Additional Solicitor General, Altaf Ahmed, who argued in the Supreme Court in the ‘JMM Bribery case' is categorical that in the present instance both Houses were justified in referring the issue to the privileges committee. He says: “If MPs were publicly ridiculed, it [referring of the issue to the committee] is a correct exercise or discretion and not an abuse of power. By ridiculing the MPs, you [persons concerned] are ridiculing the instrumentality of the State organ, viz. Parliament, the law-making institution.”
Asked whether such initiation of contempt would infringe on the right to freedom of speech and expression, Mr. Ahmed says: “Freedom of speech doesn't mean ridiculing an institution and its Members and instigating the general public. I would say it is abuse of freedom of speech.”
Published - August 31, 2011 01:13 am IST
