SC Approves Admissibility of Parliamentary Standing Committee Reports in Evidence

May 09, 2018

Case name: Kalpana Mehta and others v. Union of India and others

Date of Judgment: May 9, 2018

In a 338 pages long judgment, the Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today delivered its verdict to hold that the Courts can rely on Parliamentary Standing Committee Reports (PSC). Hence, the intrinsic issue taken up for consideration was whether a Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) report can be placed reliance upon for adjudication of a fact in issue and also for what other purposes it can be taken aid of?

In the case, the Petitioner had contended that the Court should not decide the controversy as per the facts stated in the report of the PSC treating it to be conclusive; rather the Court should take judicial notice of the same as provided under Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act.

While pronouncing the judgment, the Supreme Court navigated through the foundational fundamentals which take within its ambit the supremacy of the Constitution, constitutional limitations, separation of powers, power of judicial review and self-imposed restraint, interpretation of constitutional provisions in many a sphere, the duty of parliamentary committee in various democracies and also certain statutory provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Bench’s Verdict

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while allowing reliance on Parliamentary Standing Committee Reports, made the following conclusions in the case:

• According   to   sub­clause   (2)   of   Article   105   of the Constitution of India no member of Parliament can be held liable for anything said by him in Parliament or in any committee. The reports submitted by Members of Parliament is also fully covered by protection under sub­clause (2) of Article 105 of the Constitution of India.
• The   publication   of   the   reports   not   being   only permitted, but also are being encouraged by the Parliament. The   general   public   are   keenly interested in knowing about the parliamentary proceedings including parliamentary reports which are   steps   towards   the   governance   of   the country.   The   right   to   know   about   the   reports only arises when they have been published for use of the general public.
• Section 57(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that the course of proceedings of Parliament and the Legislature established under any law are facts of which judicial notice shall be taken by Courts.
• Parliament   has   already   adopted   a   report   of “privilege committee” that for those documents “privilege committee”, that for those documents which are public documents within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no requirement of any permission of Speaker of Lok Sabha for producing such documents as evidence in Court.
• That   mere   fact   that   document   is   admissible   in evidence whether a public or private document does not lead to draw any presumption that the contents of the document are also true and correct.
• When a party relies on any fact stated in the Parliamentary Committee Report as the matter of noticing an event or history no exception can be taken on such reliance of the report. However, no   party   can   be   allowed   to   ‘question’   or ‘impeach’ report of Parliamentary Committee. The Parliamentary   privilege that it shall not be impeached or questioned outside the Parliament shall equally apply both to a party who files claim in the court and other who objects to it. Any   observation   in   the   report   or   inference   of the Committee cannot be held to be binding between the parties. The parties are at liberty to   lead   evidence   independently   to   prove   their stand in a court of law.
• Both   the   Parties   have   not   disputed   that Parliamentary   Reports   can   be   used   for   the purposes of legislative history of a Statute as well as for considering the statement made by a minister.  When there is no breach of privilege in  considering the  Parliamentary  materials  and reports of the Committee by the Court for the above   two   purposes,   we   fail   to   see   any   valid reason for not accepting the submission of the petitioner   that   Courts   are   not   debarred   from accepting   the   Parliamentary   materials   and reports,   on   record,   before   it,   provided   the Court does not proceed to permit the parties to question and impeach the reports.
• The Constitution does not envisage supremacy of any   of   the   three   organs   of   the   State.   But, functioning   of   all   the   three   organs   is controlled   by   the   Constitution.     Wherever, interaction   and   deliberations   among   the   three organs have been envisaged, a delicate balance and mutual respect are contemplated.   All   the three   organs   have   to   strive   to   achieve   the constitutional goal set out for ‘We the People’. Mutual harmony and respect have to be maintained by   all   the   three   organs   to   serve   the Constitution under which we all live.
• We are of the view that fair comments on report of   the   Parliamentary   Committee   are   fully protected   under   the   rights   guaranteed   under Article 19(1)(a). However, the comments when turns into personal attack on the individual member of Parliament or House or made in vulgar or abusive language tarnishing the image of member or House, the said comments amounts to contempt of the house and breach of privilege.
• The   function   of   adjudicating   rights   of   the parties has   been entrusted to the constituted courts   as   per   Constitutional   Scheme,   which adjudication has to be made after observing the procedural safeguards which include right to be heard   and   right     to   produce   evidence. Parliament,   however,   is   not   vested   with   any adjudicatory   jurisdiction   which   belong   to judicature under the Constitutional scheme.
• Admissibility   of   a   Parliamentary   Committee Report in evidence does not mean that the facts stated in the Report stand proved. When issues of   facts   come   before   a   Court   of   law   for adjudication, the Court is to decide the issues on the basis of evidence and material brought before it.