Article:
In a recent development, the two Houses of the Maharashtra State Legislature have unanimously passed proposals stating they will not acknowledge or respond to any notices sent by the High Court (HC) or the Supreme Court (SC) in connection with a Breach of Privilege Motion against a TV editor and anchor.
Background of the Issue
The situation originated from a Breach of Privileges Motion that was moved in the State Assembly against a TV anchor. The anchor was accused of utilizing derogatory language, making baseless comments about the Chief Minister of the state, and repeatedly insulting Ministers and MPs during TV discussions. These actions led to this motion being filed in the State Assembly.
On further progression of the matter, the anchor challenged the Breach of Privilege Motion in the Supreme Court. This action was questioned by the assistant secretary of the Assembly along with the matter of revealing confidential communications from the Speaker and the House Privileges Committee. The Supreme Court then issued a contempt notice to the assistant secretary of the Assembly and also stated the requirement to serve the Speaker to understand his perspective in the matter.
Current Situation and State Assembly’s Position
Responding to these developments, the House Speaker initiated a proposal backed by the Treasury benches. The proposal cited Article 194 of the Constitution – outlining the powers and privileges of legislative Houses, and Article 212 – which restricts courts from interfering in legislative proceedings.
The proposal implied that acknowledging such notices would equate to accepting that the judiciary has the power to oversee the legislature. It argued that this would contradict the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Consequently, these proposals were passed unanimously, asserting that the Speaker and Deputy Speaker would not respond to any notice or summons issued by the Supreme Court.
The Legislative Council also adopted this proposal unanimously. They resolved not to take cognizance of any notice or summons issued by either the HC or SC.
Responses and Reactions
Various politicians have expressed that the notice was due to the exceptional language used in the letter and it did not violate legislature’s rights to legislate. They have opined that if such a motion gets passed, it could set an improper precedent.
The Parliamentary Affairs Minister stated that this proposal aims to preserve the prestige of the Speaker’s chair and safeguard the presiding authority from judicial scrutiny on legislative matters.
About Privilege Motion
A Privilege Motion concerns the breach of parliamentary privileges by a minister. Parliamentary Privileges refer to particular rights and immunities that members of Parliament enjoy individually and collectively for the effective execution of their duties.
When any of these rights and immunities are violated, the offence is referred to as a breach of privilege. It is punishable under the law of Parliament. If someone is found guilty of breaching privilege, a notice is moved in the form of a motion by any member of either House.
Role of the Speaker/Chair in a Privilege Motion
The Speaker or Chair provides the first level of scrutiny in a privilege motion. They can directly decide on the privilege motion or refer it to the privileges committee of Parliament. Provided the Speaker or Chair gives consent under relevant rules, the concerned member is granted an opportunity to make a concise statement.
Ruling Privilege
Rule 222 in Chapter 20 of the Lok Sabha Rule Book and correspondingly, Rule 187 in Chapter 16 of the Rajya Sabha Rule Book govern privilege. According to these rules, a member may raise a question involving a breach of privilege with the consent of the Speaker or the Chairperson. This could involve a breach of privilege of a member, the House, or a committee thereof.
