INTRODUCTION
On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Ajit
Mohan and Others v. Legislative Assembly National Capital Territory of Delhi
and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 456. We had discussed this case on the
last show regarding the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to
wastage of judicial time. Today we will discuss the issue of legislative privilege that was discussed in this case. In layman terms, Legislative Privilege is the bundle of rights that the legislative assembly enjoys collectively and its members enjoy individually to carry out their functions.
FACTS
On 02.03.2020, the Legislative Assembly of Delhi had
constituted a Committee on Peace and Harmony in light of the Delhi Communal Riots
that took place between 24th to 29th February 2020. Its purpose
was to “consider the factors and situations which have the potential to disturb
communal harmony in the National Capital Territory of Delhi and suggest
measures to eliminate such factors and deal with such situations so as to
establish harmony among different religious or linguistic communities or social
groups.”
According to the said Committee, it had received
complaints against Facebook suggesting that it is used as a platform to fuel
hate and communal discord. Multiple Summons were issued to the Facebook
Officials to appear before the Committee of Legislative Assembly of NCT, but it
was contended that the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi does not have power
to regulate intermediaries. Thereafter on 03.02.2021, a Fresh Notice dated
03.02.2021 was issued to Facebook seeking appearance of its officers.
The relevant legal provision apposite for our
discussion is Article 194 (3) of the Constitution of India that provides that the
powers and the privileges of a Legislature “shall be such as may from time to
time be defined by the Legislature by law.” Now, let us understand the pertinent
observations of the Court.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
Firstly, it was the view of the Court that under
Article 194 (3), the Constitution has given power to the legislature to make
its rules from time to time and it would not be appropriate for the Courts to
interfere with such powers.
Secondly, it was opined that intermediary like
Facebook play a huge role in shaping public opinion these days and it is
imbecile to suggest that Facebook is just another social media platform rather
it is a business first.
Thirdly, it was observed that the proceedings
before legislative assemblies are not the same as proceedings before the Courts
and the functions performed by the legislatures are not just restricted to
enacting of laws rather the legislature debates on many aspects and many of its
committees do the hard groundwork before enactment of laws.
Fourthly, the Court was reluctant to invoke its
powers of Judicial Review at threshold stage when merely the Summons have been
issued for appearance. Further, the Committee is a creature of the Legislative Assembly
and whether privilege powers could be exercised by it will be seen only when
the same is actually done by the Committee and not at the threshold stage of
issuance of summons.
Fifthly, according to the Court, the summons has
been issued lawfully and no coercive action has been taken against the Facebook
or its Officials. Even the intended coercive action could be avoided by simply
participating in the proceedings.
Sixthly, it was argued that the Legislative
Assembly has no legislative competence, and the Facebook is dragged in this
matter because of political reasons. In this regard, the Court observed that “the
power to investigate is inherent in the power to make laws by the legislative
body.”
HELD BY THE COURT
Firstly, it was held that the power to compel
attendance by initiating privilege proceedings is an essential legislative
power.
Secondly, it was also held that in the larger
context of maintaining peace and harmony, the legislative assembly is free to
look into such aspects of governance.
Thirdly, the Committee had mentioned in its terms
of reference that it may recommend action against persons against whom
incriminating evidence is found. According to the Court, such terms of reference
relate to Police Powers regarding maintenance of Public Order that are
exclusively within Entry 1 and 2 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution
of India as due to the unique status of Delhi, such powers are vested with the
Centre. Hence, such terms of reference are
outside the scope of the power of the Committee and the Facebook would be free
not to answer any questions in this regard.
CONCLUSION
I concur with the reasoning of the Court that
entities like Facebook are more than social media platforms in today’s era and
they have vital impact in shaping of public opinion. A Legislative Assembly has
all rights to question any body and law-making is just one of the functions performed
by it. Hence, I hope that in future, for trivial issues like issuance of summons,
precious judicial time does not get wasted.
No comments:
Post a Comment