Supreme Court clarifies use of Parliamentary Committee Reports in Public Interest Litigations (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 9, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 414
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. (Majority opinion by Dipak Misra, CJI, with concurring opinions by Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J and Ashok Bhushan, J.)
Can a court rely on a Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) report when deciding a public interest litigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the extent to which these reports can be used as evidence. The core issue revolved around balancing the need for transparency and accountability with the constitutional separation of powers and parliamentary privileges. This judgment clarifies the use of these reports in court proceedings, setting guidelines for future cases.

Case Background

The case originated from two public interest litigations (PILs) filed in 2012 and 2013, concerning the approval and administration of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine for preventing cervical cancer. The petitioners alleged that the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) had not followed proper procedures in approving the vaccine. They also raised concerns about the safety of the vaccine, citing instances of adverse effects and deaths among young girls who had received it as part of a demonstration project in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners further contended that the trials were conducted without the informed consent of the parents/guardians of the minor girls.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

During the proceedings, the petitioners relied on the 81st Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC), seeking to use it as evidence to support their claims. The respondents objected, arguing that PSC reports could not be used in court proceedings. A two-judge bench, recognizing the constitutional importance of the issue, referred the matter to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily discussed the interpretation of the following articles of the Indian Constitution:

• Article 105: This article deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of the Houses of Parliament and their members and committees. It ensures freedom of speech in Parliament and protects members from legal liability for their statements and votes in the House.
• Article 121: This article restricts discussions in Parliament regarding the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, except during a motion for their removal.
• Article 122: This article bars courts from inquiring into the validity of parliamentary proceedings based on alleged procedural irregularities.
• Section 57(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section mandates that courts take judicial notice of the course of proceedings of Parliament.
• Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section defines what constitutes a public document.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that PSC reports, being public documents, should be admissible as evidence. They contended that such reports are essential for ensuring government accountability and for the court to arrive at a just conclusion in public interest litigations. They emphasized that they were not seeking to enforce the recommendations of the PSC, but rather to use the factual findings in the report to support their claims. They also argued that the concept of parliamentary privilege under Article 105 is to protect the freedom of speech within the House, and that relying on PSC reports does not violate this principle.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that PSC reports are meant to guide the functioning of government and are not amenable to contest or criticism in a court of law. They argued that allowing such reports to be used as evidence would breach parliamentary privilege and upset the delicate balance between constitutional institutions. They also submitted that the reports are merely ‘considered advice’ to the House and cannot be tendered as evidence to augment the stance on a factual score.

Submissions of the Petitioners:

• PSC reports are public documents and can be judicially noticed under Section 57(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The court has the jurisdiction under Article 32 to conduct an independent inquiry and can consider the facts in the PSC report.
• The petitioners are not seeking a mandamus to enforce the PSC recommendations, but are only using the report for its persuasive value.
• The concept of parliamentary privilege under Article 105 is to protect the freedom of speech within the House, and that relying on PSC reports does not violate this principle.

Submissions of the Respondents:

• PSC reports are meant to guide the functioning of government and are not amenable to contest or criticism in a court of law.
• The reports are merely “considered advice” to the House and cannot be tendered as evidence to augment the stance on a factual score.
• Allowing PSC reports to be used as evidence would breach parliamentary privilege and upset the delicate balance between constitutional institutions.
• Judicial review cannot extend to scrutinizing or judicially reviewing the functioning or reports of the Committees of Parliament.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether in a litigation filed before this Court either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Court can refer to and place reliance upon the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee?
2. Whether such a Report can be looked at for the purpose of reference and, if so, can there be restrictions for the purpose of reference regard being had to the concept of parliamentary privilege and the delicate balance between the constitutional institutions that Articles 105, 121 and 122 of the Constitution conceive?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, answered the questions referred to it by holding that:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Pepper v. Hart, [1992] UKHL 3: The court relied on this case to establish that the exclusionary rule should be relaxed so as to permit reference to Parliamentary materials where legislation is ambiguous or obscure.
• Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and others, (2007) 3 SCC 184: The court relied on this case to demonstrate that the privileges of the Parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.
• U.P. Assembly case [Special Reference No. 1 of 1964], AIR 1965 SC 745: The Court referred to this case to clarify the relationship between the privileges of the House and the fundamental rights of citizens.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a careful balancing of several key factors:

The Court emphasized that while parliamentary privilege is crucial, it cannot be absolute, especially when it comes to matters of public interest. The Court also recognized the need for judicial review to ensure accountability and transparency in governance. However, it also acknowledged the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and not encroaching upon the legislative domain. The Court’s decision was a balanced approach, aiming to uphold constitutional principles while ensuring that the public interest is served.

Flowchart of the Court’s Decision-Making Process

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case clarified the extent to which Parliamentary Standing Committee reports can be used in court proceedings. The Court held that while these reports can be referred to and considered as evidence, they cannot be used to challenge the authority of the Parliament or to impinge upon its privileges. The judgment strikes a balance between the need for transparency and accountability and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. It allows courts to consider factual findings in PSC reports while ensuring that the legislative process remains independent and free from judicial interference. This judgment provides a valuable framework for future cases involving the use of parliamentary reports in legal proceedings, ensuring that the principles of constitutional governance are upheld.