TEJ KIRAN .JAIN & Ors. v. N. SANHV A REDDY AND OTHE!tS

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 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 If a summons is issued to a witness or to against the absent respondent. 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. 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 from the is an aprxal Hidayalnllah, C.J. This 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 this· Court under Art. 13 3 (1 )(a) of the Constitution and this appeal has been brought. c D E Notice of the lodgment of the appeal was issued to the res· F pondents in due course but they have not appeared. The Unio11 Government which joined, at its request, as a party in the High Court alone appeared through the Attorney General. We have not considered it necessary to hear the Union Government. The facts of the case, in so far as they are relevant to our purpose, may briefly stated. The appellants claim to be the admirers and followers of J agadguru Shankaracharya of Gover in March, 1969 a World Hindu Religious dan Peeth, Purl. Conference was held at Patna. The Shankaracharya took part )in it and is reported to have observed that untouchability was in harmony with the tenets of Hinduism and that no law could stand in its way and to have walked out wheP tlie National Anthem was played. G H On April 2, 1969 Shri Narendra Kumar Salve, M. P. (Detul) moved a Calling Attention Motion in the Lok Sabha and gave 614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 1 S.C.R, particulars of the· happening. A discussion followed and respond, mts execrated the . Shankaracharya. According appellants, the respondents ' the · "gave themselves upto the use of language which wu more common place than serious, more lax than digni- . fied, more unparliamentary than sober and jokes and puns were bandied around ~e playful spree, and His Holiness 1 agadguru Shankracharya Ananta Shri Vibu shit Swami Shri Niranjan Deva Teertha of Goverdhan Peeth-' Puri, was made to appear as a leperous . (Sic) dog." The appellants who hold the Shanl{aracharya in high esteem felt scandalised and brought the action for damages placing the damages at Rs. 26,000. -. .. The plaint was rejected as High Coun held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. B c Article 105 of the Constitution, which defines the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament and its Members, pro vides: D · ''1 05 ( l) Subject to the provisions of this Con stitution and to · the rules and standing orders regula ting the procedure of Parliament, there shall be free dom of speech in Parliament. / (2) No Member of Parliament shall be ~iable to any proceedings in · any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority ol either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. (3) In other respects, tl:}e powers, privileges and . immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parlia ment by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of the Hou!'e of Commons ot the Parliament of the United Kingdom, ·and of its members and committees, and at the commencement of this Constitution. ( 4) The provisions of clauses (1 ) , ( 2) and ( 3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of. a · House of Par- E G H / .. . 9 r. I<. JAIN V. N. S. REDDY (Hidayatrc/lah, C.J.) 615 ]iament or any . Committee thereof as they ap 1 relation to members of Parliarnen~." P Y The Highd~ourt hel1 1t.ha~ in view of clause (2) of the Arti cle no procee mgs cou . Ie m. any court in respect of what was said by the. respondents In Parliament and the plaint must, there- fore, be rejected. , .- • Mr. Lekbi in arguing this appeal drew our attention 10 aa observat~on of this C<_>urt ~Special R~t:rence No. 1 of 1964(1), wbere thiS Court dealing With the proviSions of Article 212 of the Constitution pointe_d out th~t the immunity under that Article was. aeainst an alleged 1rregulanty oi procedure but not against an ille- C gality, and con!ended that the same prin_ciple should be applied here to determme whether what was said was outside the dis cussion on a Calling Attention Motion. According to him the immunity granted by the second clause of the one hundred and fifth article was to what was relevant to the business of Parlia ment and not to something which was utterly irrelevant. D l 0 in respect of · In our judgment it is not possible to read the provisions of the article in the way suggested. The article means what it says in language which could not be plainer. The article confers immunity inter alia 'anything said . •...•.. in Parliament". The word 'anything' is of the widest import and is equivalent to 'everythino', The only limitation arises the words 'in Parliament' Which means during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of the business of Parliament. We are concerned only with speeches in Lok Sabh~. Once it ~as Jlroved that Parliament was sitting and its busme~$ ~as betng ~ransacted, anything said during the course o~ that bus.mes_s was .Thts Jn'llUnJty JS not It IS of the essence of F Immune from proceedings in any court. Only complete but is as it should be. ~arliamentary system of Government that people's representa tives should be free to express themselves without fear _of. Ie~al consequences. What they say is only subject to the ctsctphne of the rules of Parliament the good sense of the members and G ~e ~ontrol of proceedings' by the Speaker. The Nttrts have no Y m the matter and should really have none. or Mr. ~ekhi attempted to base arguments upon .the o~e~oy~ 'I an lnsh case and another from Massachusseth rep . . s · f the -leal' provGtOll " ay's p 1. 1 n. VI~W 0 aJooies of llihour Constitution we are not requtred to act on an ~Ja~ thus li coer legislative bodies. The decision under anpea\~11 -oe 00 ar Jamentary Practice. or~~ct. The appeal fails and is dismissed but there s • -~ '-- ' . fll [1965] I S.C.R. 413 nl 455. ;; .·, 616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 1 S.C.R. Before we leave the case we wish to refer to the notice of lhe lodgment of the appeal. The suit was for Rs. 26,000 and, the certificate was granted under Art. 133 of the Constitution by the High Court. Under the Rules of this Court an appeal has to be lodged after the certificate is gtanted and a notice of lodgment of the appeal is taken out by t:L.e app;;!lants to inform the respondents so, that they may take action ccnsidered appro priate or necessary. After service of notice this Court treats t~e appeal as properly lodged and can proceed to hear, it when time can be found for hearing. Without the notice the case cannot be brought to a hearing. The notice which is issu, ed is not a summons to appear before the , Court. It is only an inti mation of the fact of the lodgment of the appeal. It is lot the party infoqned to choose whether to appear or not. Summonses issue to defendantst to witnesses aild to persons against whom complaints are filed in a 'criminal court. If a summons issues to a defen dant and he does not appear the court may tat.:e the action to be undefended and proceeding:. ex parte may even claim of the plaintiff to be admitted. This com:equence docs not flow from the notice of the lodgment of the appeal in this Court. The Court has to proceed with the appeal albeit ex pa{te against The absent respondent. If a summons is issued to a wi~ess or to a person complained · against under the law relating to crimes, and the witness 'Or the person summon~ remains absent after service a warrant for his arrest may issue. We hupe ·that these remarks will serve to explain the true position. regard A B c D E R.K.P.S. Appeal dismissed. t • ~ .