http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: TEJ KIRAN JAIN AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: N. SANJIVA REDDY AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/05/1970

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N. RAY, A.N. DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1573            1971 SCR  (1) 612  1970 SCC  (2) 272

ACT: Constitution  of  India, Article  105(2)--Speeches  made  in Parliament by member--Extent of immunity from any action  in courts--Supreme Court appeal--Notice of lodgment--Effect of.

HEADNOTE: The  appellants  filed  a suit for  demages  in  respect  of defamatory  statements  alleged  to have been  made  by  the respondents, who were members of Parliament, on the floor of the  Lok Sabha during a calling attention motion.  The  High Court  dismissed the suit holding that no proceedings  could be  taken in a court of law in respect of what was  said  on the  floor  of  Parliament in view of  Art.  105(2)  of  the Constitution.   However,  it certified the case as  fit  for appeal  to  this  Court  under  Art.  133  (1)  (a)  of  the Constitution. It was contended on behalf of the appellants by reference to the observations of this Court in Special reference No. 1 of 1964  dealing  with  the provisions of Art.  212,  that  the immunity   under  ’that  Article  was  against  an   alleged irregularity  of procedure but not against  an  illlegality, and  contended that the same principle should be applied  in the  present  case to determine whether what  was  said  was outside  the discusion on a calling attention  motion;  that the immunity granted by Art. 105(2) was to what was relevant to the business of Parliament and not to something which was irrelevant. HELD : The Articleconfers immunity inter alia in respect  of "anything said..........in Parliament".  The word "anything" is  of the widest import and is equivalent to  ’everything’. The  only limitation arises from the words  ’in  Parliament’ which  means  during  the siting of Parliament  and  in  the course  of the business of Parliament.. Once it  was  proved that  Parliament  was  sitting and its  business  was  being transacted, anything said during the course of that business was immune from proceedings in any court. [615 E] Obiter  : Under the Rules of this Court an appeal has to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

lodged  after  the certificate is granted and  a  notice  of lodgment  of  the appeal is taken out by the  appellants  to inform  the  respondents  so  that  they  may  take   action considered  appropriate  or  necessary.   After  service  of notice this Court treates the appeal as properly lodged  and can  proceed to hear it when time can be found for  hearing. The notice which is issued is not a summons to appear before the  Court;  it  is only an intimation of the  fact  of  the lodgment  of  the appeal.  It is for the party  informed  to choose  whether  to  appear  or  not.   Summonses  issue  to defendants,  to  witnesses  and  to  persons  against   whom complaints  are  filed in a criminal court.   If  a  summons issues  to a defendant and he does not appear the court  may take the action to be undefended and proceeding ex parte may even regard the claim of the plaintiff to be admitted.  This consequence does not flow from the notice of the lodgment of the appeal 613 in  this  Court.  The Court has to proceed with  the  appeal albeit ex parte against the absent respondent.  If a summons is.  issued to a witness or to a person  complained  against under-the  law  relating to crimes, and the witness  or  the person  summoned remains absent after service a warrant  for his arrest may issue. [616 A]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2572  of 1969. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated August 4, 1969  of the Delhi High Court in Suit No. 228 of 1969. P. N. Lekhi and K. B. Rohatgi, for the appellant. Niren De, Attorney-General, L. M. Singhvi, R. H. Dhebar  and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. This is an appeal from the order,  August 4,  1969,  of  a  Full Bench of the  High  Court  of  Delhi, ’rejecting  a plaint filed by the six appellants claiming  a decree  for Rs. 26,000 as damages for defamatory  statements made  by  Shri  Sanjiva Reddy (former  Speaker  of  the  Lok Sabha), Shri Y. B. Chavan (Home Minister) and three  members of Parliament on the floor of the Lok Sabha during a Calling Attention  Motion  the High Court held that  no  proceedings could be taken in a court of law in respect of what was said on  the  floor of Parliament in view of Art. 105(2)  of  the Constitution.   The High Court, however, certified the  case as fit for appeal to this Court under Art. 13 3 ( 1 ) (a) of the Constitution and this appeal has been brought. Notice of the lodgement of the appeal was issued to the res- pondents  in  due course but they have  not  appeared.   The Union Government which joined, at its request, as a party in the High Court alone appeared through the Attorney  General. We  have  not  considered it necessary  to  hear  the  Union Government. The facts of the case, in so far as they are relevant to our purpose, may briefly stated.  The appellants claim to be the admirers and followers of Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Gover- dan  Peeth,  Puri. in March, 1969 a  World  Hindu  Religious Conference was held at Patna.  The Shankaracharya took  part in  it and is reported to have observed that  untouchability was  in harmony with the tenets of Hinduism and that no  law could  stand  in its way and to, have walked  out  when  the National Anthem was played. On  April 2, 1969 Shri Narendra Kumar Salve, M.  P.  (Detul)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

moved a Calling Attention Motion in the Lok Sabha and gave 614 particulars of the happening.  A discussion followed and the respondents execrated the Shankaracharya.  According to  the appellants, the respondents "  gave themselves upto the use of language which  was  more common  place  than serious, more lax than  dignified,  more unparliamentary  than sober and jokes and puns were  bandied around  the  playful  spree,  and  His  Holiness   Jagadguru Shankracharya Ananta Shri Vibushit Swami Shri Niranjan  Deva Teertha  of Goverdhan Peeth, Puri, was made to appear  as  a leperous (Sic) dog". The  appellants who hold the Shankaracharya in  high  esteem felt scandalised and brought the action for damages  placing the  damages at Rs. 26,000.  The plaint was rejected as  the High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. ,Article 105 of the Constitution, which defines the  powers, privileges  and  immunities of Parliament and  its  Members, provides :               "105  (1)  Subject to the provisions  of  this               Constitution  and  to the rules  and  standing               orders regulating the procedure of Parliament,               there   shall   be  freedom   of   speech   in               Parliament.               (2)No Member of Parliament shall be liable  to               any  proceedings  in any court in  respect  of               anything  said  or any vote given  by  him  in               Parliament  or any committee thereof,  and  no               person  shall be so liable in respect  of  the               publication  by  or  under  the  authority  of               either  House  of Parliament  of  any  report,               paper, votes or proceedings.               (3)In    other   respects,   the    powers,               privileges  and  immunities of each  House  of               Parliament,   and  of  the  members  and   the               committees of each House, shall be such as may               from time to time be defined by Parliament  by               law, and, until so defined, shall be those  of               the House of Commons of the Parliament of  the               United   Kingdom,  and  of  its  members   and               committees,  and at the commencement  of  this               Constitution.               (4)The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and  (3)               shall  apply  in relation to  persons  who  by               virtue of this Constitution have the right  to               speak  in, and otherwise to take part  in  the               proceedings of, a House of Par- 615               liament or any Committee thereof as they apply               in relation to members of Parliament." The High Court held that in-view of clause (2) of the  Arti- cle no proceedings could lie in any court in respect of what was  said  by the respondents in Parliament and  the  plaint must, therefore, be rejected. Mr.  Lekhi in arguing,this appeal drew our attention  to  an observation  of  this  Court  special  Reference  No.  1  of 1964(1),  where  this Court dealing with the  provisions  of Article  212  of  the  Constitution  pointed  out  that  the immunity   under  that  Article  was  against   an   alleged irregularity of procedure but not against an illegality, and contended that the same principle should be applied  here to determine  whether what was said was outside the  discussion on  a  Calling  Attention  Motion.   According  to  him  the immunity granted by the second clause of the one hundred and fifth  article was to what was relevant to the  business  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Parliament   and   not  to  something  which   was   utterly irrelevant. In our judgment it is not possible to read the provisions of the article in the way suggested.  The article means what it says  in language which could not be plainer.   The  article confers   immunity  inter  alia  in  respect  of   ’anything said........ in Parliament".  The word ’anything’ is of  the widest  import and is equivalent to ’everything’.  The  only limitation arises from the words ’in Parliament’ which means during  the sitting of Parliament and in the course  of  the business of Parliament.  We are concerned only with speeches in  Lok  Sabha.   Once it was  proved  that  Parliament  was sitting and its business was being transacted, anything said during   the  course  of  that  business  was  immune   from proceedings  in  any  court.   This  immunity  is  not  only complete  but is as it should be.  It is of the  essence  of Parliamentary system of Government that people’s representa- tives  should be free to express themselves without fear  of legal  consequences.  What they say is only subject  to  the discipline of the rules of Parliament, the good sense of the members and the control of proceedings by the Speaker.   The courts  have no   say in the matter and should  really  have none. Mr. Lekhi attempted to base arguments upon the analogy of an Irish case and another from Massachussetts reported in May’s Parliamentary Practice.  In view of the clear provisions  of our Constitution we are not required to act on analogies  of other  legislative  bodies.  The decision under  appeal  was thus   correct.  The appeal fails and is dismissed but  the- re shall he no order about costs. (1) [1965] 1 S.C.R. 413 at 455. 616 Before  we leave the case we wish to refer to the notice  of the lodgment of the appeal.  The suit was for Rs. 26,000 and the   certificate  was  granted  under  Art.  133   of   the Constitution  by  the High Court.  Under the Rules  of  this Court  an appeal has to be lodged after the  certificate  is granted and a notice of lodgment of the appeal is taken  out by the appellants to inform the respondents so that they may take  action  considered appropriate  or  necessary.   After service of notice this Court treats ,the appeal as  properly lodged and can proceed to hear it when time can be found for hearing.  Without the notice the case cannot be brought to a hearing.   The  notice which is issued is not a  summons  to appear  before the Court.  It is only an intimation  of  the fact  of  the lodgment of the appeal.  It is for  the  party informed  to  choose whether to appear  or  not.   Summonses issue  to  defendants, to witnesses and to  persons  against whom complaints are filed in a criminal court.  If a summons issues  to a defendant and he does not appear the court  may take the action to be undefended and proceeding ex parte may even regard the claim of the plaintiff to be admitted.  This consequence  doe,. not flow from the notice of the  lodgment of the appeal in this Court.  The Court has to proceed  with the  appeal albeit ex parte against The  absent  respondent. If  a  summons  is  issued to a  witness  or  to  ,a  person complained against under the law relating to crimes, and the witness or the person summoned remains absent after  service a  warrant  for his arrest may issue.  We  hope  that  these remarks will serve to explain the true position. R.K.P.S.                        Appeal dismissed. 617