DR. JATISH CHANDRA GHOSH versus HARI SADHAN MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 16-01-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

·j(l'ltuary z6. 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961) 
DR. JATISH CHANDRA GHOSH 
'I!, 
HAR! SADHAN MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS. 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and J. R. MuDBOLKAR,JJ.) 
State Legislature-Member, Powers and Privileges of-:-Publica-
tion of questions disallowed by Speaker-Prosecution for defamation 
-Immunity-Constitution of India, Art. z94-Indian Penal Code, 
z86o (XLV of z86o), ss. 499, 500. 
The appellant, who was an elected member of the West 
Bengal Legislative Assembly, gave notice of his intention to put 
certain questions in the Assembly and on those questions being 
disallowed by the Speaker published them in a journal called 
Janamat of Ghatal, his own constituency. The first respond-
ent who was then the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ghatal and 
whose conduct was the subject-matter of some of those questions, 
filed a complaint against the appellant and two others, the editor 
and the printer and publisher of the J anamat, under ss. 500 and 
501 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded privilege 
and immunity under Art. 194 of the Constitution as a bar to 
criminal prosecution. The trial Magistrate as also the High Court 
found against him. On appeal by special leave, it was claimed on 
his behalf that he had an absolute privilege under Art..194 of the 
Constitution to publish the disallowed questions and could not be 
prosecuted therefor. 
Held, that the claim of immunity under Art. 194 of the 
Constitution must be negatived. 
Clause (I)·of Art. 194 had no application since the matter was 
clearly outside the scope of that clause. 
Clause (2) of that Article was also inapplicable since it was 
not the case of the appellant that the publication was under the 
authority of the Legislative Assembly and it could not also be said 
that it came within the expression "anything said or any vote 
given" in that clause. 
The publication of a disallowed question by a member of the 
Assembly does not come within the powers, privileges and 
immunities enjoyed by a member of the House of Commons and, 
consequently, cl. (3) of Art. 194 also cannot be of any help to the 
appellant. The immunity enjoyed by a member of the House of 
Commons is clearly confined to speeches made in Parliament and 
does not extend to the publication of the debate outside. If he 
publishes his.speech, made in the House, separately from the 
rest of the proceedings of the House, he is liable for defamation, 
in case it is defamatory. 
Abingdon's case, Espinasse's Reports, Nisi Prius 1793-1810, 
228 and Creevey's case, l Maule and Selwyn's Reports, King's 
Bench, 1813-1817, 273, referred !n 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
487 
There is no absolute privilege attaching to the publication of 
x96x 
extracts from the proceedings in the House of Commons and a 
-
member, who has absolute privilege in respect of his speech in Dr. ]atish Cha•dr< 
the House itself, can claim only a qualified privilege in respect of 
Ghosh 
it if he causes the same to be published in the public press. 
v. 
Quaere: Whether publication of parliamentary proceedings, 
Hari Sadhan 
not authorised by the House, stands on the same footing as the 
Mukherjee 
publication of proceedings in a court of law. 
Wason v. Walter, (1868-69) L.R. 4 Q.B. 73, referred to. 
M. S. M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, [1959] Supp. l S.C.R. 
806, distinguished. 
Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee v. Punit Goala, (1951) 55 C.W.N. 
745, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 65of1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dat.ed April 11, 1956, of the Calcutta High Court 
in Criminal Revision No. 1584 of 1955. 
N. 0. Chatterjee, Arun Kumar Dutta and D. N. 
Mukherjee, for the appellant. 
K.B. Bagchi and S.N. Mukherjee, for the respondents. 
1961. January 16. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SINHA, C.J.-This appeal by special leave is directed 
Sinha C.J. 
against the judgment and order of the High Court of 
Judicature at Calcutta, dated April 11, 1956, whereby 
the appellant's claim of absolute privilege as a member 
of the Bengal Legislative Assembly was rejected and 
the prosecution launched against him under s. 500, 
Indian Penal Code, was allowed to proceed. 
The facts of this case are not in doubt or dispute 
and may shortly be stated as follows. 
The appellant 
is a citizen of India and an elected member of the 
West Bengal Legislative Assembly. 
He is also a 
medical practitioner at Ghat.al in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.