Supreme Court refers the issue of admissibility of Parliamentary Standing Committee reports to Constitution Bench: Kalpana Mehta vs. Union of India (2017)

Date of the Judgment: April 5, 2017

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Dipak Misra, J., Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.

Can a court use a Parliamentary Standing Committee report as evidence in a case? The Supreme Court of India grappled with this question, specifically in the context of a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the approval and administration of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine. This case examines the extent to which such reports can be relied upon by the court, considering the separation of powers and parliamentary privileges. The two-judge bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Rohinton Fali Nariman referred the matter to a larger Constitution Bench for final resolution.

Case Background

The writ petitions were initially filed in 2012 and 2013, focusing on the actions of the Drugs Controller General of India and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) regarding the approval of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine. This vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt. Ltd. and MSD Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, was intended to prevent cervical cancer in women. The governments of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh (before its bifurcation) conducted trials of the vaccine as part of an immunization program, with funding from PATH International. The litigation also addressed the unfortunate deaths of some individuals who had received the vaccine, along with the issue of compensation.

Over the course of the proceedings, several orders were passed by the Supreme Court. A key order on August 12, 2014, posed several critical questions to the involved parties, including whether proper procedures were followed in the vaccine’s introduction, the reasons for choosing specific locations for the trials, and the actual causes of deaths and ailments related to the vaccine. The Court also sought clarification on the consent process for administering the vaccine to young girls.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

During the proceedings, the petitioners drew the Court’s attention to the 81st Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, dated December 22, 2014. This report raised concerns about the “concept of consent” in the administration of the vaccine and the resultant illnesses suffered by the victims. The Court then issued directions for the concerned governments to file affidavits regarding the steps taken in light of the Parliamentary Standing Committee report. The Union of India and the States maintained that the vaccine was necessary and that they had taken steps to avoid any hazards. On November 18, 2015, the Court began to consider whether it could rely on the Parliamentary Standing Committee report while exercising its power of judicial review. This led to the matter being referred to a larger bench.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the powers and privileges of the Parliament and its committees, as outlined in the Constitution of India and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha. Key provisions include:

• Article 105 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of each House of Parliament and its members and committees. It ensures freedom of speech in Parliament and protects members from court proceedings for anything said or voted in Parliament or its committees. It also protects the publication of reports, papers, votes, or proceedings under the authority of either House of Parliament.
• Article 118 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers each House of Parliament to make rules for regulating its procedure and the conduct of its business.
• Article 121 of the Constitution of India: This article restricts discussions in Parliament regarding the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, except on a motion for presenting an address to the President for the removal of the Judge.
• Article 122 of the Constitution of India: This article bars courts from inquiring into the validity of any proceedings in Parliament based on alleged irregularities of procedure. It also protects officers or members of Parliament from court jurisdiction in respect of their exercise of powers for regulating procedure or maintaining order.
• Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha: These rules define a “Parliamentary Committee” and outline the functions of various committees. Rule 270 specifies the functions of Standing Committees, while Rule 274 deals with the report of the Committee, and Rule 277 states that the report has persuasive value.

Arguments

The arguments in this case centered on whether the Supreme Court could consider and rely upon the reports of Parliamentary Standing Committees in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Here’s a breakdown of the key arguments:

• Petitioners’ Arguments (Mr. Colin Gonsalves and Mr. Anand Grover):
  • The petitioners argued that the Court could consider the Parliamentary Standing Committee report to understand the facts and issue necessary directions. They contended that there is no absolute bar on relying on such reports, especially since they are publicly available.
  • They argued that the role of Parliament in modern democracy has expanded to include transparency, and since the report is accessible, it should be utilized in court proceedings.
  • They emphasized that as long as the reference to the report does not violate the freedom of speech of the committee members or criticize the report, it should be permissible.
  • The petitioners relied on the judgment in Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and others [(2007) 3 SCC 184], which stated that Parliament’s views deserve deference even when its acts are subject to judicial scrutiny.
  • They also cited Krishan Lal Gera v. State of Haryana and others [(2011) 10 SCC 529], where a Parliamentary Standing Committee report was referred to.
• Union of India’s Arguments (Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Mr. A.K. Panda, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, and Mrs. Rekha Pandey):
  • The Union of India argued that Parliamentary Standing Committee reports are meant to guide the functioning of departments and serve as a precursor to debates in Parliament. They are not meant to be used in court as evidence.
  • They contended that the constitutional scheme does not support the interpretation that such reports can be relied upon in court proceedings.
  • They asserted that these reports are meant to have persuasive value as advice to the Parliament, not as evidence in a court of law.
  • They also argued that the reports are subject to debate and adoption by the Parliament, and therefore, they do not attain finality.
  • The Union of India relied on A.K. Roy v. Union of India and others [(1982) 1 SCC 271], which held that the Court cannot compel the government to bring a constitutional amendment into force. They drew an analogy to argue that the Court should not rely on Parliamentary Standing Committee reports for issuing writs.
• Respondent No. 6’s Arguments (Ms. Manisha Singh):
  • The respondent argued that the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee cannot be challenged in court, citing M.S.M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha and Others [AIR 1960 SC 1186].
  • They pointed to paragraph 431(o) of Raja Ram Pal (supra), which states that the court will not question the truth or correctness of the material presented to the legislature.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court framed the following questions for reference to the Constitution Bench:

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 several authorities to address the issue of whether it could rely on Parliamentary Standing Committee reports. These authorities are categorized by the legal points they address:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article provides the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Article 105 of the Constitution of India: Deals with the powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof.
• Article 118 of the Constitution of India: Empowers each House of Parliament to make rules for regulating its procedure and the conduct of its business.
• Article 121 of the Constitution of India: Restricts discussions in Parliament regarding the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court.
• Article 122 of the Constitution of India: Stipulates that courts are not to inquire into the proceedings of Parliament.
• Article 136 of the Constitution of India: Grants the Supreme Court special leave to appeal.
• Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India: Deals with the constitution of a bench for hearing cases involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
• Rule 270 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha: Deals with the functions of the Parliamentary Committee.
• Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha: Deals with the report of the Committee.
• Rule 277 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha: Stipulates that the report is to have persuasive value.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and authorities presented by both sides. The Court’s treatment of the submissions and authorities is summarized below:

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court noted that the petitioners relied on Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and others [(2007) 3 SCC 184]* and Krishan Lal Gera v. State of Haryana and others [(2011) 10 SCC 529]* to argue that the reports could be considered by the court. However, the court did not accept that it could be used as a piece of evidence.
• The Court noted that the Union of India relied on A.K. Roy v. Union of India and others [(1982) 1 SCC 271]* to argue that the Court cannot compel the government to bring a constitutional amendment into force, drawing an analogy to argue that the Court should not rely on Parliamentary Standing Committee reports for issuing writs. This was accepted by the court to show the demarcation of powers.
• The Court noted that the respondent No. 6 relied on M.S.M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha and Others [AIR 1960 SC 1186]* to argue that the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee cannot be challenged in court. This was accepted by the court.
• The Court also referred to Sarojini Ramaswami vs. Union of India and others [(1992) 4 SCC 506]*, Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. Union of India and others [(2013) 7 SCC 1]*, R v. Murphy [(1986) 5 NSWLR 18]*, Office of Government Commerce v. Information Commissioner [2008] EWHC 737 (Adnin)* and Hamilton v. Al Fayed [2001] 1 A.C. 395* to show the limitations of use of Parliamentary reports.
• The Court referred to cases like Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]*, Manoj Narula v. Union of India [(2014) 9 SCC 122]*, Jyoti Harshad Mehta and others v. Custodian and others [(2009) 10 SCC 564]*, State of W.B. v. Union of India [AIR 1963 SC 1241]*, K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam and another [AIR 1981 SC 1922]*, Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte [(1996) 1 SCC 130]*, Novartis AG v. Union of India [(2013) 6 SCC 1]*, State of M.P. v. Dadabhoy’s New Chirimiri Ponri Hill Colliery Co. (P) Ltd. [(1972) 1 SCC 298]*, Union of India v. Steel Stock Holders’ Syndicate [(1976) 3 SCC 108]* and Surana Steels (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1999) 4 SCC 306]* to show that parliamentary debates and reports can be used for the purpose of understanding the intent of the legislature.
• The Court referred to State Bank of India through General Manager v. National Housing Bank and others [(2013) 16 SCC 538]* to show that the report of a statutory committee cannot be received as evidence of facts stated in the report.

The Court observed that while Constituent Assembly debates and Parliamentary speeches can be referred to for understanding the context of a legislation, relying on a Parliamentary Standing Committee report as a piece of evidence to establish a fact is different. The Court noted that inviting a contest on the Parliamentary Standing Committee report could disrupt the delicate balance between constitutional institutions. It also emphasized that the freedom of speech of a member of a committee is within the domain of that committee and cannot be adverted to by the court in a lis.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that due to the substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution, the issue should be referred to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. The Court framed two specific questions for the Constitution Bench to address.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench was influenced by a number of factors, primarily focusing on the need to maintain the delicate balance between the constitutional institutions and the proper interpretation of parliamentary privileges. The Court was cautious about setting a precedent that could potentially undermine the authority and autonomy of the Parliament and its committees. The main points that weighed in the mind of the Court are:

• Constitutional Balance: The Court was keen to maintain the separation of powers and the delicate balance between the judiciary and the legislature. Allowing the use of Parliamentary Standing Committee reports as evidence could potentially lead to judicial overreach and interference in parliamentary affairs.
• Parliamentary Privilege: The Court recognized the importance of parliamentary privilege, which protects the freedom of speech of members of Parliament and its committees. Using these reports as evidence in court could lead to the questioning of the committee’s proceedings and the statements made by its members, which is protected by the Constitution.
• Nature of Evidence: The Court distinguished between using parliamentary documents for understanding legislative intent and using them as direct evidence of facts. It was of the view that while parliamentary debates and speeches can be used for interpretation, the reports of the committees cannot be used as a piece of evidence to establish a fact, as these reports are subject to debate and adoption by the Parliament and do not attain finality.
• Substantial Question of Law: The Court recognized that the issue raised a substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution, specifically Articles 105, 121, and 122. This necessitated the involvement of a larger Constitution Bench for a conclusive decision.
• Precedent Setting: The Court was aware that its decision would set a precedent for future cases involving the use of parliamentary reports in judicial proceedings. Therefore, it was crucial to address the issue with utmost care and consideration, ensuring that the decision upholds the constitutional principles.
• Safeguarding Parliamentary Autonomy: The Court was mindful of not allowing any judicial action that could potentially undermine the functioning and autonomy of the Parliament. The Court was of the view that the freedom of speech of a member of a committee is within the domain of that committee and cannot be adverted to by the court in a lis.

Flowchart of the Case

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kalpana Mehta vs. Union of India to refer the issue of admissibility of Parliamentary Standing Committee reports to a Constitution Bench underscores the complex interplay between the judiciary and the legislature in a democratic setup. The case highlights the need to carefully balance the principles of judicial review with the constitutional privileges of the Parliament. The Court’s concern about maintaining the separation of powers and safeguarding parliamentary autonomy is evident in its reasoning. The reference to a larger bench indicates the gravity of the issue and the potential implications for future judicial proceedings. The debate over the use of parliamentary reports in court continues, and the Constitution Bench’s decision will be crucial in setting the legal framework for this matter.