Breach of Privileges – Karnataka Assembly verdict on Journalists

Facts of the case :

Karnataka Assembly Speaker KB Koliwad sentenced two editors of Kannada tabloids to one year imprisonment and slapped them with a fine of Rs 10,000 each for defamatory articles under its power to punish breach of privileges.

The articles concerned were published in “Hi Bangalore” and “Yelahanka Voice” which were referred to the Privileges Committee in 2014.

What are Parliamentary Privileges?

According to Art 105 and Article 194 of the Indian Constitution, certain privileges and immunities are granted to the Members of Parliament and State Legislators respectively.

The privileges and immunities are

1. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament [State legislatures], there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament [State legislatures].
2. No member of Parliament[State legislatures]shall be liable to any proceeding in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament[State legislatures] or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament [State legislatures]of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
3. In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament[State legislatures] , and the members and the committee of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by the Parliament [State legislatures] by law, and until so defined, [shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of Section 15 of the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978].
4. The provision 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 Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to the members of Parliament.

Case Analysis

The rationale behind the conferment of parliamentary privileges and immunities  on legislative institutions is the idea of protecting freedom of speech and expression in the House and ensuring that undue influence, pressure or coercion is not brought on the legislature in the course of its functioning.

Even though Art 105  grants powers to the Parliament to legislate a law defining the privileges and immunities, the breach and its penalties etc, unfortunately our law making body hasn’t brought out a law in this regard. We follow the parliamentary conventions in this regard, and therefore we are left with a vacuum in this area of conflicts.

In the absence of any such law, therefore, the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses  of Parliament and State Legislatures and of the Members and the committees thereof continue in actual practice to be governed by the precedents of the British House of Commons as they existed on the date our Constitution came into force.

Hence, there is a wider scope of interpretation for the term “ breach of privilege”, which is often misused to keep up with the image of individual legislators, when the real intention of privileges and immunities are way different altogether.

In the present case, the Privileges Committee order reads following,

“Even after coming before the committee and apologising, Anil Raju continued to publish defamatory articles with mocking pictures. In one follow-up article, the Yelahanka Voice went on to call SR Viswanath mentally ill.”

It is obvious from the report that the Articles written by the journalists were against the Legislators individually, and it had nothing to do with the functioning of the State Legislative Assembly.

As commented by the Hindu, “ Whether what Ravi Belagere and Anil Raj, the editors of the two tabloids, published was fair comment or unfair criticism is not germane in this case. What matters is that by no stretch of the imagination could the articles have impeded the independent functioning of the three legislators who had complained against them. If the members felt defamed, they could have opted to pursue an appropriate judicial remedy in their individual capacity”.

In the present case, the editors are punished for publishing defamatory articles against 3 legislators of Karnataka Assembly. The question to be answered here  is whether the articles published by the two journals impeded the functioning of the legislators with respect to the House? or is it independent of the proceedings in the House? Another conflict to be resolved is whether the matter comes under the jurisdiction of State Assembly under breach of privileges? or under the Court for defamation?

In cases, that involve personal criticism, it is appropriate that the aggrieved person  approach a Court of Law  for a civil defamation case  in his individual capacity. Further, with the absence of a  well-codified law on the parliamentary privileges and immunities and the power to punish for breach of privileges, the conflicts arising out of such matters would remain a negative stimulus to the freedom of expression of a citizen as guaranteed by the Constitution of our Country.

The power to punish breach of privilege is granted on the legislature so as to ensure proper functioning of the body without fear and outside interference and it is not for keeping shut the liberal critics of the legislators.

If there is any grievance against any of the publications made by media or print with respect to proceedings in the legislative house, which cannot be classified as a fair criticism or true report,but could be considered as a malicious content, the legislature can use its powers under breach of privilege which is seemingly inappropriate in this case.

Normally, no restrictions are imposed on reporting the proceedings of the House. But when debates or proceedings of the House or its Committees are reported mala fide or there is wilful misrepresentation or suppression of speeches of particular Members, it is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House and the offender is liable to punishment.

Some of the important types of contempt of Parliament are mentioned below:-

• Speeches or writings reflecting on the House, its Committees or Members;

• Reflections on the character and impartiality of the Chairman/Speaker in the discharge of his duty;

• Publication of false or distorted report of the Proceedings of the House;

• Publication oil expunged proceedings of the House;

• Publication of proceedings of secret Sessions of the House;

• Premature publication of proceedings, evidence or report of a Parliamentary Committee;

• Reflections on the report of a Parliamentary Committee;

• Molestation of Members on account of their conduct in the House or obstructing Members while in the performance of their duties as Members or while on their way to or coming after, attending the House or a Committee thereof;

• Offering bribes to Members to influence them in their Parliamentary conduct;

• Intimidation of Members in connection with their Parliamentary conduct;

• Any misconduct or undignified behaviour on the part of a Member, such as, corruption in the execution of his office as Member, disorderly and undignified conduct contrary to the usage or inconsistent with accepted standards of Parliamentary conduct;

• Obstructing or molesting officers of the House in the discharge of their duties;

• Giving false or misleading evidence or information deliberately to the House or a Committee thereof, by a Member or a witness.

• Obstructing or molesting any witness during his evidence before a Committee of the House.

The Hindu in its editorial rightly concluded that “ The absence of codification of a law gives the House the freedom to decide when and how breach of privilege occurs. Even if it is conceded that the House has such a right, a moot question is whether the legislature, through its Committee of Privileges, should be a judge in its own cause. Whether the legislature’s power to punish for breach of privilege extends to handing down a prison term is still an open question. The time has come for the legislature to codify privileges and for the higher judiciary to lay down the limits of penal action for breach of privilege.”