Madras HC stays Privilege Committee proceedings against MK Stalin, other DMK MLAs for display of Gutkha on Assembly floor in 2017

The Madras High Court today stayed the Privilege Committee notice and allied proceedings issued against Tamil Nadu's opposition leader, MK Stalin and 17 other MLA's of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party in relation to their display of the banned Gutkha (chewing tobacco) packets on the Legislative Assembly floor in 2017. .The Privilege Committee proceedings have been stayed until further orders. The Court has fixed the matter to be taken up next on October 28, by when the Advocate General is to file a counter to the petition moved by the DMK MLAs..While dictating the interim order of stay this morning, Justice Pushpa Sathyaranarayana observed that DMK MLAs had made out a prima facie case (while arguing their petition against the Privilege Committee notice) meriting the grant of a stay. .Earlier this year, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had quashed the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker's 2017 breach of privilege notice over the same issue, on finding that the notice suffered from foundational effects. .Pertinently, the Division Bench had ruled that the display of the banned Gutkha on the Assembly Floor by the MLAs for the purpose of highlighting its widespread availability despite the ban does not violate any law, contrary to the stance taken in the earlier privilege committee proceedings.."Foundational defects" in Privilege Notice issued against DMK MLAs for displaying Gutkha Packets in TN Assembly: Madras HC [Read Judgment].In arguments made yesterday, the Advocate General Vijay Narayan argued that the defects referred to by the Division Bench has been cured in the new notice, which now cites display of the packets without the permission of the Speaker, disturbance to assembly proceedings, causing disorder and disrepute to the assembly as reasons for issuing the Privilege Committee notice. .Responding to a Court's query, the AG summed up,"I am saying, you can do whatever you want but take permission. This is an assembly floor. There are procedures.".Display of gutkha packets on the Assembly floor may or may not be prohibited as far as Privilege Committee proceedings are concerned, the AG said, pointing out even the Division Bench had ruled so. Notably, the Court had left it to the Privilege Committee to deliberate on the issue further and examine whether the conduct would amount to a breach of privilege, particularly since the legality of conduct does not necessarily mean that the conduct is not a breach of privilege.Justice Sathyanarayana, however, expressed her reservations over the new privilege committee notice, pointing out that the grounds citied therein could have been raised in the earlier notice. .Referring to the objections outlined in the new Privilege Committee notice, the Court orally observed,"The first error is then committed by you (Speaker) for not raising this objection (in the earlier Privilege Committee notice). You have already given up that.".The AG, however, urged that the Court should not grant a stay in the matter yet, given that there is no pressing reason for the same presently. He argued, "It is not my friend's case that the Assembly will be conducted today, tomorrow or even next week. I will file a counter and my Lordships may decide at the earliest. My learned friend has made no case that the axe could fall on his head... Let him reply to the notice. Let him participate in the proceedings. We do not know what decision the Privilege Committee is going to take. Even if they decide that breach of privilege has been made out, it has to be placed before the Assembly.".The petitioners' counsel, on the other hand, disputed the power of the Privilige Committee to issue the notice, while relying on the Madras High Court's earlier observations that the display of gutkha packets by the DMK MLAs could not be viewed as being covered by the gutkha ban in Tamil Nadu. .The intention for displaying the gutkha packets was to promote the ban, the petitioners' counsel asserted. It was pointed out that the Division Bench had also noted this i.e. that the purpose for which the gutkha packets were being displayed was to highlight the vulnerability of the law and the failure to impose the ban..It was also argued that a fresh reference has not been made to the Privilege Committee to issue a new notice. In this case, the reference was made in 2017, which has been quashed, it was pointed out. As such, the petitioners queried if the Privilege Committee could not issue notice over an issue that is stale. Submissions were also made to assert that the new notice was malafide. .Senior counsel R Shanmugasundaram, Amit Anand Tiwari and NR Elango (for Advocate V Arun) appeared for the petitioners. .The matter will be taken up next on October 28..Read the Order: