JUSTICE (RETD.) MARKANDEY KATJU versus THE LOK SABHA & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 15-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 11 S.C.R. 621 
JUSTICE (RETD.) MARKANDEY KATJU 
v. 
THE LOK SABHA & ANR. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 504 of2015) 
DECEMBER 15, 2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Constitution of India: 
Arts. 32 and 105(2) - Derogatory remarks in Facebook post 
by retired Judge of Supreme Court against Mahatma Gandhi and 
Subhash Chandra Bose - Lok Sabha as well as Rajya Sabha by 
passing resolution condemned the remark.- - Writ petition seeking 
quashing of the resolutions - Maintainability of the petition - Held: 
Though Parliament/Houses have freedom of speech in Parliament 
and anything said by Members in the Parliament is immune from 
any proceeding in the Court - However, such immunity is not 
available to collective expression of opinio11 by all Members 
culmi11ati11g i11 a motio11 or resolution by the House - Therefore, the 
present writ petition is maintainable. 
Art.19(l}(a) - Derogatory remarks in Facebook post by retired 
Judge of Supreme Court, against Mahatma Gandhi a11d Subhash 
Chandra Bose - Condem11ed by Lok Sabha a11d Rajya Sabha by 
passi11g resolutio11s - Whether the condemnation resulted in 
impairing the freedom of speech of the Judge - Held: Art.19(1)(a) 
guarantees free speech and expressio11 - It makes 110 disti11ction 
a11d imposes 110 caveats whether such speech is popular or disse11ti11g 
i11 11ature - I11 the present case, the Judge had exercised the freedom 
of speech adequately - His freedom of speech in publica//y 
expressing his views or propagating his ideas was not in any man11er 
curtailed or impaired or placed under any restriction. 
Art. 105(1) - Scope of - Derogatory remarks i11 Facebook 
post, by retired Judge of Supreme Court against Mahatma Ga11dhi 
a11d Subhash Chandra Bose - Resolutio11s passed by.Lok Sabha 
a11d Rajya Sabha condemning the derogatory remarks - Whether 
the Houses had jurisdiction to pass the resolutio11s - Held: For the 
621 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
622 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 11 S.C.R. 
A 
free functioning of the Houses of Parliament or Legislatures of 
State it is necessary that the representatives of people must be free 
to discuss and debate any issues or questions concerning general 
public interest. - It is entirely left to the discretion of the Presiding 
Officer to permit discussion so long as it is within the confines of 
B 
c 
Rulqs of Procedure - rr. 156, 155 and 157 of Rajya Sabha Rules 
and rr. 171, 172 and 17 3 of Lok Sabha Rules show that a resolution 
could relate to a matter of general public interest which could be in 
the form of a declaration of opinion - However, the rules specify 
the condition that the resolution shall not refer to the conduct or 
character of persons except in their official or public capacity - In 
the present case, the condemnation by both the houses was of the 
opinion of the petitioner and did not refer to the conduct or character 
of the petitioner - The resolutions were purely in the form of 
declaration of opinion - So long as the debate or discussion is 
within the confines of the rules, it will be expressly within the powers 
D of the House to disapprove such opinions - Rules of Procedure and 
Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) - n: 155, 
156 and 157 - Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok 
Sabha - rr. 171, 172 and 17 3. 
Art. 105 - Privilege under - Nature of - Held: The privilege 
of "freedom of speech in Parliament" is the privilege of Parliament/ 
E House in the first instance and then to its members - Such privilege 
is not co11ji11ed to the individual members. 
Natural Justice: 
Right of being heard - Derogatory remarks made by a citizen 
F 
(a retired Judge of Supreme Court) against Mahatma Gandhi and 
Subhash Chandra Bose - Condemnation of the remarks by Lok 
Sabha and Rajya Sabha by passing resolutions, without granting 
opportunity of hearing to the citizen - Propriety of - Held: Passing 
of resolution without giving opportunity of hearing is a matter of 
concern - But, in what manner and to what extent the citizen be 
G protected and insulated is for the concerned Houses and Legislatures 
to decide. 
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The history of parliamentary privileges shows 
H that the privileges have been defined as the sum of the 
JUSTICE (RETD.) MARKANDEY KATJU v. THE LOK SABHA 
623 
fundamental rights of the House and of its individual Members 
inter alia, as against the prerogatives of the Crown and the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.