Supreme Court Addresses Legislative Competence and Privilege in Summons to Facebook: Ajit Mohan & Ors. vs. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 08 July 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 409

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a State Legislative Assembly summon a representative of a social media platform like Facebook to testify on matters related to public order, which is typically a subject under the purview of the Central Government? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case, where the Court examined the powers of the Delhi Legislative Assembly and the limits of its authority in summoning individuals. The case arose after the Delhi Assembly’s Committee on Peace and Harmony sought to question Facebook India’s Managing Director regarding the platform’s role in the Delhi riots of February 2020.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Hrishikesh Roy, analyzed the complex interplay between legislative privilege, fundamental rights, and the division of powers between the Union and the State. The judgment provides critical insights into the scope of legislative competence and the extent to which a State Assembly can exercise its powers in matters that may overlap with the Union’s domain.

Case Background

The case stems from the communal riots that occurred in North-East Delhi between 24th and 29th February 2020. Following these riots, the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (the Assembly) established a Committee on Peace and Harmony on 02 March 2020. The Committee’s mandate included examining factors that could disturb communal harmony and suggesting measures to promote peace.

The Committee received numerous complaints alleging that Facebook had been used as a platform to spread hate speech and disrupt communal harmony. This was further fueled by a Wall Street Journal article published on 14 August 2020, which suggested a bias in Facebook’s content moderation policies.

Subsequently, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology also issued a notice to Mr. Ajit Mohan, Vice President and Managing Director of Facebook India, requesting his appearance on 02 September 2020. Following this, the Delhi Assembly’s Committee on Peace and Harmony issued its first summons on 10 September 2020, to Mr. Ajit Mohan, followed by a second summons on 18 September 2020, after a press conference by the Chairman of the Committee on 31 August 2020.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key legal provisions, including:

• ✓ Article 194(3) of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of the State Legislatures and their members. It states that these powers are to be defined by the Legislature by law.
• ✓ Article 239AA of the Constitution of India: This article contains special provisions with respect to Delhi, including the powers of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi to make laws. It also specifies certain matters over which the Assembly does not have legislative competence.
• ✓ Section 18 of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 (GNCTD Act): This section outlines the powers, privileges, and immunities of the members of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi, stating that they are similar to those enjoyed by the House of the People and its members.
• ✓ Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act): This section empowers the Central Government to issue directions for blocking public access to any information through any computer resource.
• ✓ Entry 39 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule: This entry pertains to the powers, privileges, and immunities of the Legislative Assembly and its members, as well as the enforcement of attendance of persons for giving evidence.
• ✓ Entry 45 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule: This entry relates to inquiries and statistics for the purposes of any matters specified in List II or List III.

The Court also considered the division of legislative powers under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, particularly the entries in the State List (List II) and the Concurrent List (List III), and the exclusion of certain entries from the legislative competence of the Delhi Assembly.

Arguments

The petitioners, led by Mr. Salve and Mr. Datar, argued that:

• ✓ The Delhi Assembly’s summons was an attempt to encroach upon the legislative domain of the Union, as matters related to public order and police fall under the Union’s purview.
• ✓ The Assembly lacked the legislative competence to summon Facebook, as the regulation of intermediaries is covered by the Information Technology Act, a central legislation.
• ✓ The summons violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners, including the right to remain silent and the right to privacy.
• ✓ The Committee’s actions were politically motivated and aimed at roping in Facebook as a co-accused in the Delhi riots, rather than a legitimate inquiry.
• ✓ The powers of privilege must be narrowly construed and reconciled with an individual’s right to privacy and free speech.

The respondents, represented by Dr. Singhvi and Dr. Dhavan, countered that:

• ✓ The Assembly had the power to summon witnesses as part of its legislative function and the Committee was acting within its mandate to maintain peace and harmony.
• ✓ The summons did not violate any fundamental rights, as the petitioners were being called as witnesses, not as accused.
• ✓ The Committee’s inquiry was not limited to law and order but included broader aspects of communal harmony, which fall within the Assembly’s competence.
• ✓ The powers of privilege were amorphous in common law and the Parliament has consciously not codified this area of law so that they can cater to unimagined situations in the future.
• ✓ The Committee proceedings are House proceedings and the Supreme Court would normally never interfere with House proceedings and therefore also not with committee proceedings.

The Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, supported the respondents’ claim on the power of the Assembly to summon but also argued that the Assembly lacked legislative competence to deal with the subject matter in question.

The innovativeness of the arguments lay in the petitioners’ attempt to redefine the scope of legislative privilege and fundamental rights in the context of digital platforms, while the respondents emphasized the inherent powers of the legislature and the need for cooperation in maintaining peace and harmony.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the Delhi Legislative Assembly has the power to summon a person to give evidence who is not part of the executive?
2. Whether powers of privilege extend to summoning an individual and compelling them to give evidence on matters of fact or seek their opinion on any subject matter?
3. How is the exercise of legislative privilege to be reconciled with an individual’s right to privacy and free speech?
4. Whether the Delhi Legislative Assembly is constrained by the subject matter which constitutes a part of the business of the House relating to its legislative functions?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, delivered the following judgment:

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• ✓ State of Karnataka v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that legislative powers must be exercised within the scope of the Constitution.
• ✓ Amarinder Singh v. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha & Ors. [CITATION]: The Court used this case to highlight the distinction between legislative and executive functions.
• ✓ Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju v. Lok Sabha & Anr. [CITATION]: This case was cited to emphasize that action against a citizen must interfere with the fundamental functioning of the House.
• ✓ Special Reference No.1 of 1964 [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the judiciary can scrutinize legislative actions that infringe on fundamental rights.
• ✓ Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors. [CITATION]: This case was used to support the judiciary’s jurisdiction to decide the content and scope of legislative powers.
• ✓ Kalpana Mehta And Ors. vs Union of India And Ors. [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to emphasize the importance of committees in the legislative process.
• ✓ C. Subramaniam v. The Speaker, Madras Legislative Assembly [CITATION]: This case was used to support the view that challenging a show-cause notice is premature.
• ✓ MSM Sharma v. Dr. Shree Sri Krishna Sinha [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that Article 19(1)(a) must yield to Article 194(1) and the latter part of its clause (3), which are special.
• ✓ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [CITATION]: This case was cited to highlight that a law must satisfy the requirements of other fundamental rights, such as Article 19.
• ✓ R.C. Cooper v. Union of India [CITATION]: This case was used to support the view that a law must satisfy the requirements of other fundamental rights, such as Article 19.
• ✓ Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]: The Court recognized the right to remain silent as part of personal autonomy.
• ✓ State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India and Anr. [CITATION]: This case was used to support the view that all entries in List II will have full play except three specific entries which were excluded.
• ✓ Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court discussed the procedure to deal with blocking public access to information under Section 69A of the IT Act.
• ✓ Watkins v. United States [CITATION]: This case was cited to emphasize that an inquiry must be related to a legitimate task of Congress.
• ✓ Barenblatt v. United States [CITATION]: The Court clarified that the power of inquiry is not unlimited.
• ✓ Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund [CITATION]: This case was used to reiterate that the power to investigate is inherent in the power to make law.
• ✓ Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Padilla [CITATION]: This case was cited to emphasize that the legislature may not use its powers to defeat or impair the exercise of other branches’ functions.

The Court’s reasoning was as follows:

The Court rejected the argument that the Delhi Assembly was acting beyond its legislative competence, but cautioned that the Committee must not encroach upon areas reserved for the Union Government. The Court also emphasized that the Committee’s role was not to act as a prosecuting agency. The Court also noted that the Committee must not encroach upon the areas reserved for the Central Government under the Seventh Schedule.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, including the argument that the Assembly’s powers were limited to its legislative functions. However, it ultimately held that the Assembly has a broader role in governance. The Court also rejected the argument that the proceedings were politically motivated, but cautioned the Committee against overstepping its mandate.

The Court concluded that while the Assembly has the power to summon witnesses, it must operate within the confines of its legislative competence and respect the fundamental rights of individuals. The Court also held that the Committee should not encroach upon the areas reserved for the Central Government under the Seventh Schedule and that the Committee was not a prosecuting agency.

“The power to compel attendance by initiating privilege proceedings is an essential power.”

“Privileges must be reconciled with fundamental rights, but the right to remain silent is not absolute.”

“The Assembly’s powers are limited by its legislative competence as per the Constitution.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The judgment clarifies that while the Assembly has the power to summon individuals and form committees, it must operate within the boundaries of its legislative competence as defined by the Constitution and cannot encroach upon the legislative field of the Parliament.

This judgment has significant implications for future cases, as it clarifies the extent to which State Assemblies can exercise their powers in matters that intersect with the Union’s domain. It also emphasizes the need for a balanced approach between legislative privilege and individual rights.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrine or legal principle, but it does provide a comprehensive analysis of existing legal principles in the context of a modern issue involving digital platforms. The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and maintaining a balance between different organs of the State.

Key Takeaways

The practical implications of this judgment include:

• ✓ State Assemblies have the power to summon individuals for legislative purposes, but this power is not absolute.
• ✓ Legislative committees must operate within the legislative competence of their respective Assemblies.
• ✓ Individuals summoned as witnesses have a right to a fair process and cannot be compelled to answer questions that violate their fundamental rights or that are outside the purview of the legislative body.
• ✓ The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between legislative privilege and individual rights.
• ✓ The judgment reinforces the need for cooperation and coordination between the Union and State Governments.

The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on future cases involving legislative powers and fundamental rights. It sets a precedent for how legislative bodies should conduct inquiries and how individuals should respond to summons. This case also highlights the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and maintaining a balance between different organs of the State.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Committee must not encroach upon the areas reserved for the Central Government under the Seventh Schedule and that the Committee was not a prosecuting agency. Further, the Court clarified that the Committee must adhere to the principles of natural justice and not embark on a path of holding people guilty and directing the filing of supplementary chargesheets.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not applicable in this case.