SC Says The Issue Of Fundamental Rights And Legislative Privileges Pending Since 2005 Needs To Be Given More Importance

BACKGROUND

• Mr. Ajit Mohan, Vice President and Managing Director of Facebook India, and the company Facebook were alleged to collude with the parties who had an interest in the recent riots that took place in the national capital, New Delhi.
• The aftermath of this was the formation of the Peace and Harmony Committee by the Legislative Assembly of Delhi under the Chairmanship of Mr. Raghav Chadha, MLA.
• The Committee issued summons to Mr. Ajit Mohan regarding the same, to present himself before the Committee and answer the required questions.

ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT

• The summons was challenged by Mr. Ajit Mohan through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on the ground that they were violative of Fundamental Rights.
• The issue that came before the Court was whether a House or the Legislative Assembly has the privilege to summon a person to give evidence who is not part of the Executive?
• Does this privilege extend to compelling the person to give evidence and if yes, then how can such privilege be balanced with an individual’s Right to Privacy and free speech?

OBSERVATIONS

• The Court noted that a similar question related to the interplay between Fundamental Rights and State Legislature’s privilege powers under Article 194(3) is pending before a 7-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in N. Ravi v. Legislative Assembly, concerning the conflict between the cases MSM Sharma and Special Reference No.1 of 1964.
• The Court observed that the said case had been pending before the Supreme Court Bench since 2005 and it should be of given priority as to answer this contended question.
• In the N. Ravi case, journalist N Ravi had approached the Apex Court after the Tamil Nadu Assembly took action against them on the grounds of breach of privilege and gross contempt.

MSM SHARMA CASE

• Pandit M.S Sharma, the Editor of an English newspaper, was called upon by the Patna Legislative Assembly to show cause as to why no steps should be taken against him on the grounds of breach of privileges of the Speaker and the Assembly.
• He published a speech made by the member of the Assembly in its entirety in his newspaper.
• He challenged the show cause notice before the Supreme Court because it was violative of his Fundamental Rights to Speech and Expression under Article 19 of the Constitution.

What do you think of this case?