Pandit M.S.M. Sharma Vs Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and others

Pandit M.S.M. Sharma vs Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and others.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Citation: 1960 SC 1186 ; 1969 AIR 395 ; 1959 SCR Supl.(1) 806.

Case Type:

Case No.: 122 of 1958

Date of Judgement: 12/12/1958.

Petitioner: Pandit M.S.M. Sharma.

Respondent: Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and others.

Bench:

Statutes Referred:

Cases Referred:

Facts:

The petitioner was the Editor of the newspaper ‘Searchlight’ of Patna.
On 30th 1957, there was a debate in the Bihar Legislative Assembly when M.P.N. Singh, one of the oldest members of the Assembly, delivered a speech criticizing the Bihar administration, which Dr S.K. Sinha, the Chief Minister, ran. M.P.N. Singh also cited certain instances of favouritism.
The Speaker of the Assembly held that a portion of the speech was objectionable and directed it to be expunged. However, no specific direction was given to the Press.
On 31st May, the daily newspaper ‘Search Light’ published what had happened in the Assembly.
A privilege motion was moved in the Assembly and referred to the Committee of Privileges. No voting took place, and no time limit was specified for the presentation of the report, which was required under the Rules of the House. If no time limit is mentioned, according to rule 215, the report was to be submitted within a month.
After more than a year, on 18th August 1958, the petitioner received a notice to show cause why no action should be taken against him for the breach of privilege.

Issue:

Could the British House of Commons entirely prohibit the publication of its proceedings or even of such portions of them as had been directed to be expunged?
Assuming that the British House of Commons has such power and consequently the State Legislature also had such powers under Article 194(3) of the Constitution, could the privileges of the Legislature under that Article prevail over the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a)?

The contention by the Petitioner:

The notice issued by the Secretary of the Assembly and the proposed action of the Committee violated the petitioner’s freedom of speech under Article 19 (1) (a) and the protection of his personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
As an editor of a newspaper, the petitioner was entitled to the Freedom of Press.
Notice served to the petitioner by the Privileges Committee of the Bihar Assembly was illegal and invalid.
Constitution of the Privileges Committee is illegal as the Chief Minister of Bihar Dr S.K. Sinha himself had been the Chairman of the Committee.

The Contention by the Respondent:

The respondents relied on Article 194 (3) of the Constitution of India.
Just like in the British House of Commons, the proceedings of the Assembly cannot be published.
A speech, parts of which were directed to be expunged, cannot be published under any circumstances.
Such a publication was in clear breach of the privileges of the Assembly.

Obiter Dicta:

Powers, privileges and immunities granted by Article 194(3) were not subject to Article 19.
Liberty of the press was implicit in freedom of speech and expression granted to the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
At the commencement of the Indian Constitution, the British House of Commons had the power to prohibit the publication of even the true reports of the debates and the proceedings of the house. Thus, they also had the power to prevent the publication of inaccurate or expunged versions of the debates and the procedures.
The Bihar Assembly had not made any law governing its powers or privileges.
It would be incorrect to contend that the powers and privileges granted by Article 194 and Article 105 to the State Assemblies and Parliament must yield to the fundamental rights under Article 19 (1)(a).
The provisions of Article 19(1)(a) must yield to the provisions of Article 194(1).
Article 194(3) read with the rules, formed by the Bihar Legislative Assembly in the exercise of its powers under 208 of the Constitution, laid down the power, privileges and immunities of the Assembly.
Any deprivation of the petitioner’s personal liberty resulting from the parliamentary proceedings would be in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Judgement:

Article 19(1)(a) would be of no avail to the petitioner.
There could not be any breach of the petitioner’s right to life and liberty under Article 21.

Rationale:

As the Bihar Assembly had not made any law regarding its powers and proceedings, the powers of the British House of Commons were applicable to the Assembly.
As Articles 194(3) and 105(3) stood in the same supreme position as the provisions of part III of the Constitution and could not be affected by Article 13, the principle of harmonious construction must be adopted.
The clause (3) of Article 194 is a special clause.
The freedom of the press in India flowed from the freedom of speech and expressions of the citizens. No special privilege is attached to the press.

Conclusion:

After the Court’s majority decision in the case mentioned above, the Assembly was prorogued several times. The Committee of Privileges reconstituted and once again issued a fresh notice to the petitioner. The petitioner moved to the Court seeking to reopen the same issues and arguments. The Court held that the principle of res judicata applied, and the Court’s judgement could not be reopened. The decision is binding on the petitioner.

Prepared by Mihir Poojary.

You Missed