The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that Parliamentary committee reports can be used as evidence to highlight misuse of law or gaps in governance by petitioners filing public interest litigations (PIl) and by relying on the same, courts cannot be held guilty of breaching Parliamentary privileges.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra held, “The Parliamentary Standing Committee Report or any Parliamentary Committee Report can be taken judicial notice of and regarded as admissible in evidence.” However, the bench clarified that such reports cannot be impinged, challenged or its validity called in question in court.
In three separate judgments, the Bench, also comprising Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Ashok Bhushan, trashed the objection of the Centre to allow Parliamentary reports being made part of proceedings before the court. The Attorney General took the view that if such reports cannot be adjudicated upon or called in question by Courts, there was no use to bring it to court either. But the Bench struck a balance by holding that such reports can invite fair criticism from public and can be admissible as evidence in a proceeding so long as it supports the case put forth by a PIl or a writ petition.
The judgment written by CJI and Justice Khanwilkar said, "The Parliamentary Standing Committee report being in the public domain can invite fair comments and criticism from the citizens as in such a situation, the citizens do not really comment upon any member of the Parliament to invite the hazard of violation of Parliamentary privilege."
The need for examining the issue arose after a two-judge bench referred a PIl to a five-judge bench on the question whether Parliamentary Standing Committee's report can be relied upon by a petitioner to highlight systemic lapses. The case related to human trials conducted on girls aged between 10 to 14 years in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat in 2014. The human papilomavirus (HPV) vaccine trial by a US-based company was criticized by the petitioners by relying on a Parliamentary Committee report of December 2014 which found serious lapses in the project which led to death of persons.
With the Centre pitching the case on the separation of powers principle, A-G argued that by relying on such a report, the proceeding would result in adjudication of the Committee's view as the other side is bound to object it or present facts to contradict the findings. This would amount to breach of Parliamentary privilege.
The Court said that Parliamentary reports have been relied in the past by courts in India and developed nations for appreciating the historical background of a law or to find out any kind of ambiguity or incongruity in a provision of an enactment. It can further be relied upon to appreciate the mischief legislature intended to avoid. Moreover, Section 57(4) of Evidence Act casts an obligation on the Courts to take judicial notice of parliamentary reports.
Justice Chandrachud in his separate opinion said, "We no longer live in a political culture based on the subordination of individuals to the authority of the State. Our interpretation of the Constitution must reflect a keen sense of awareness of the basic change which the Constitution has made to the polity and to its governance."