Sibal, Sharan appear for DMK in TN Assembly Gutka notice row

Justice M Duraiswamy of the Madras High Court today heard the first round of arguments in the recent tussle over notice issued by the Privilege Committee of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to 21 MLAs of the Dravida Munnetra Kazahagam (DMK)..Notice was issued in the matter after Leader of the Opposition MK Stalin displayed packets of Gutka on the Assembly floor, purportedly to prove how easily available the banned substance was in the open market..Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Amarendra Sharan today made arguments before the single judge on behalf of the DMK MLAs, whereas Advocate General Vijay Narayan appeared on behalf of the Chief Secretary of the Legislative Assembly..The foremost contention put forth by Sibal was that the impugned notice was issued without any jurisdictional basis. He averred that the notice has not disclosed the rules or privileges which have been breached to invite such censure..Further, he has questioned whether raising an issue of public importance – as part of the Constitutional right and duty of the member of Legislature – can be interpreted as a breach of privilege. He also submitted that the timing of the impugned notice indicates a ploy to weaken the opposition’s call to the ruling government to prove its majority by a floor test..Apart from factual contentions, Sibal argued extensively on the subject of Legislative Privileges. He submitted that a breach of privilege would arise only if an act is done so as to obstruct the operation of the Legislature..If at all there is a rule that has been contravened, the same has to be notified. Further the contravention has to be tested to examine whether it has obstructed the operation of the House and thus amounted to a breach of privilege..In this regard, Sibal referred to the case of Amrinder Singh, in which it has been laid down,.“legislative privileges…are exercised to safeguard the integrity of legislative functions against obstructions which could be caused by members of the House as well as non-member.”.Article 194 (1) of the Constitution was cited to emphasise that as long as it does not amount to a breach of privilege, the powers and privileges of the members of the legislature are absolute. The only limitation in this regard has been provided under its first sub-clause. The limitation under the said clause has been interpreted to refer only to rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of the legislative assembly..Hence, the insertion of a specific provision is indicative of a Constitutional right to free speech distinct and independent of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a). This also means that the absolute right to free speech that a member of legislature enjoys is not subject to the restriction contained under Article 19(2). Thus, such a person cannot be proceeded against for contempt or defamation for speeches made as part of his role in House proceedings..As regards the jurisdiction of the court in the matter, Sibal relied on the case of Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha to submit that judicial scrutiny is allowed, inter alia, in matters concerning the manner of enforcement of privileges..Senior Advocate Amarender Sharan also made arguments along similar lines. He specifically pointed out that Gutka is not a banned substance per se. Rather, only its sale and manufacture are prohibited. Hence, it is wrong to call it a banned substance. It was emphasised that in any event, there is no breach of privilege in this case..Advocate General Vijay Narayan, in submitting that judicial action is not warranted in the matter at this stage, asked for time so that the explanation sought from the petitioners by the Committee may first be submitted and examined. He pointed out that the MLAs had asked for an extension of 15 days to submit an explanation..He submitted that no prejudice would be caused to them in the interim. He also argued that the facts of some of the cases relied upon by the petitioners were different in material aspects. Therefore, he requested that the Court take up the case on the issue of maintainability at the earliest..The Court has posted the case for September 14, until which time it has been directed that the proceedings concerning the impugned Privilege Committee notice be adjourned.