LexTEJ KIRAN JAIN AND OTHERS versus N. SANJIVA REDDY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
612
TEJ KIRAN .JAIN AND OTHERS
V.
N. SANHV A REDDY AND OTHE!tS
May 8, 1970
[M. HIDAYATULLAH1 C.J., J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER,
A. N. RAY AND 1. D. DUA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, Article 105 (2)-speec/res made in Parliament
by member-Extent of immunity from any ·action in courts-S11preme
Court 7ppeal-No(ice 9! lodgment-Effect of.
The appellants filed a suit for demages in respect of defamatory state-
ments alleged to !)ave 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 lit 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 in'egularity o{ 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 discu-
sion 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 somethin~ which was irrelevant.
HELD : The Article confers immunity inter alia in respect of "any-
thing said . , ..... , . . in Parliament". The word "anything'' is of the
widest import and js equivalent to 'everything'. The only .limitation arises
from the words 'in Parliament' which means during the siting of Parlia-
ment 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 pro-
ceedings in any court. [615 E]
- Obiter : Under. the Rules of this Court an appeal has to be lodged
after the certificate is p;ranted and a notice of lod.gment of the appeal is
taken out by the appellants to inform the respondents so that they may
take action con$idered appropriate or necessary.
After service of notice
this O:>urt 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 sumt1ons to appear before the Court; it is only an intimation of the
fact of the lodgment of the appeal.
It is for the party inforii:ied to
choose whether to appear or not. Sqmmonses 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 con-
tequence does not flow from the notice of the lodgment of the appeal.
A
B
c
I)
E
F
G
H
T, K. JAIN v. N. S. REDDY (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
' 613
A
in this Court. The Court has to proceed with the app~al 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 eervice a warrant
for his arrest may issue. [616 A]
CiviL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2572 of
B
1969.
c
D
E
App~l from the judgm~t and order dated August 4, 1969
oi 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. Ntzyar, for respondent No. 6.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayalnllah, C.J. This
is an aprxal 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. lt. Chavan (Home Minister) and three members of Parlia-
ment 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 Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.