PANDIT M. S. M. SHARMA versus SHRI SRI KRISHNA SINHA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 806 · Decided: 12-12-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

806 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
•958 
the Punjab Government would have authority to 
D. s. Ga.ew•I institute the enquiry against him. The Central 
v. 
Government would only come into the picture after 
Th• S•••• of 
the enquiry is concluded and if it is decided to impose 
Punj•b c;. Another one of the three punishments mentioned in r. 4(1). 
Wanchoo J. 
This contention must also be rejected. 
We, therefore, dismiss the ·appeal with costs to the 
State of Punjab. 
Appeal dismissed.. 
PANDIT M. S. M. SHARMA 
v. 
SHRI SRI KRISHNA SINHA AND. OTHERS 
(S. R. DAS, c. J., N. H. BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, 
K. SUBBA RAO and K. N. W ANOHOO, JJ.) 
State Legislature, Privilege of-Pawer to prohibit publication 
of proceedings including portions -expunged by the SPeaker-Publi· 
cation, if a breach of privilege-If can prevail over tM fundamental 
right to freedom of speech and expression-Freedom of the Press-
Scope and extent-Constitution of India, Arts. z94(3), z9(z)(a). 
The petitioner, the. Editor of the English daily newspaper 
Searchlight of Patna, was called upon by the Secretary of the 
Patna Legislative Assembly to show cause before the Committee 
of Privileges of the Assembly why appropriate action should not 
be taken against him for the breach of privileges of the Speaker 
and the Assembly for publishing in its entirety a speech. deliver-
ed in the Assembly by a member thereof, portions of which were 
directed to be expunged by the Speaker. It was contended on 
behalf of the Petitioner that the said notice and the proposed 
action by the Committee were in violation of his fundamental 
right to freedom of speech and expression under Art. l9(1)(a) 
and of the protection of his personal liberty under Art. 21 of the 
Constitution, and that, as an editor of a newspaper, he was en-
titled to all the benefits of the freedom of the Press. The 
respondents relied on Art. 194(3) of the Constitution llnd claim-
ed that the proceedings in the House as those in the British 
House of Commons were not usually meant to be published, and 
in no circumstances was it permissible to publish the parts of a 
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT R~PORTS 
807 
I 
speech which were directed to be expunged and, therefore; form-
r958 
ed no part of the official report and such publication was iri clear 
breach of the privileges of the Assembly. 
The points for 
Pandit 
determination were: 
M. s. M. Sharma 
(I) Could the British House of Commons entirely prohibit 
v. 
the publication of its proceedings or even of such port ons of Shri Sri Krishna 
them as had been directed to be expunged ? 
Sinha and Others 
(2) Assuming that the British House of Commons ha:d such 
power and consequently the State Legislature also had such 
power under Article 194(3), could the privileges of the Legi~lature 
under that Article prevail over the fundamental right guarante-
ed by Art. 19(1)(a)? 
The Bihar Legislature not having admittedly made amy law 
governing its powers and privileges under Entry 39 of List.JI of 
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the question naiturally 
was as to what were the powers, privileges and immunities of 
the British House of Commons at the commencement ·of the 
Constitution. 
Held(per Das, C.J., Bhagwati, Sinha and Wanchoo, ]].) 
that, there could be no doubt that the liberty of the Pr~ss was 
implicit in the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to a 
citizen under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that must 
include the freedom of propagation of ideas ensured by the free-
dom of circulation. 
Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras, [1950] 
S.C.~. 594, 
Brijbhushan v. The State of Delhi, [1950] S.C.R. 605 and 'Express 
Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, [1959] S.C.R. 12, relied on. 
The liberty of the Press in India flowed from this freedom 
of speech and expression of a citizen and stood on no higher 
footing and no privilege attached to the Press as such. 
I 
Arnold v. King Emperor, (1914) L.R. 41 I.A. 149, referred to. 
A survey of the evolution of Parliamentary privileges in 
England showed beyond doubt that at the commencement of the 
Indian Constitution, the British House of Commons had the 
power or privilege of prohibiting the publication of evei;i a true 
and faithful report of the debates or proceedings that took place 
in the House, and with greater reason, the power and privilege 
of prohibiting publication of an inaccurate or garbled v~rsion of 
such debates and proceedings. These were the powers and 
privileges that A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.