AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This is an extraordinary petition, which seeks to question validity of the show cause notices dt. 26.06.2012, 06.07.2012 and 08.08.2012. By these three notices, petitioner Ratna Gupta, who is Inspector of Police, has been called upon to appear before the Privilege Committee of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly to explain her conduct on allegation of breach of privilege of the Women & Child Welfare Committee of the Assembly constituted under Rule 253L of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. Women & Child Welfare Committee of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly carried out sudden inspection of Mahila Thana Gandhi Nagar (East), Jaipur on 19.07.2010. Petitioner at that time was posted as SHO in that Police Station. Allegation is that she did not furnish the documents/ information demanded by the Committee and rather misbehaved with the Chairman and Members of the Committee. The said Committee reported the matter of breach of privilege to the Privilege Committee. It is in this background that aforementioned notices were issued to the petitioner calling upon her to appear before the Privilege Committee to explain her conduct.
This Court on 28.09.2012 issued show cause notice of writ petition confined to respondent No. 1 namely; Secretary of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. The matter was scheduled to be listed on 29.10.2012. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite service. In the meantime, petitioner through her advocate moved an application for taking subsequent developments on record of this petition informing that the Privilege committee has issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner on 17.10.2012 and therefore matter may be listed at an early date. This is how the matter has came to be listed before this Court today under the orders of Hon''ble Chief Justice.
Shri S.S. Hora, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of the constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Raja Ram Pal Vs. The Hon''ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others, and while referring to para 431 of the report argued that this Court would have power of judicial review of the manner of exercise of power of breach of privilege and entertainment of writ petition for that purpose would not mean that jurisdiction of legislature is being usurped by this Court. Learned counsel has also relied on another constitutional bench judgment of Supreme Court in Amarinder Singh Vs. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha and Others, to argue that power of judicial review would not be excluded even in a matter of alleged breach of privilege and this Court is empowered to scrutinize exercise of House privileges including power of a legislature chamber to punish for contempt of itself. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner through her advocate demanded material adverse to the petitioner on which basis, reference has been made to the Privilege Committee. Respondents by their communication dt. 08.08.2012 (Ann. 8) not only rejected the said prayer but rather conveyed that her repeatedly asking for documents also tantamounts to breach of privilege. This according to the learned counsel amounts to breach of principles of natural justice violating her fundamental rights. Learned counsel therefore submitted that this Court should entertain the writ petition even at the premature stage to examine whether at all the inspection of Police Station carried out by the Women & Child Welfare Committee and alleged refusal of the petitioner to furnish documents demanded by the Committee, amounted to breach of privilege in the scope of Article 194(3) of the Constitution of India?
I have heard Shri S.S. Hora, learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material on record.
Shri G.S. Bapna, learned Advocate General was called upon to assist the Court to present his view point on the various legal as well as constitutional issues involved.
Shri G.S. Bapna, learned Advocate General has opposed the writ petition and submitted that what is in substance under challenge in this writ petition is merely three show causes whereby petitioner was called upon to reply to the allegations against her that-(i) she did not furnish the required information to the Women & Child Welfare Committee of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, (ii) she misbehaved with the Chairperson and Members of the Committee and (iii) her non-appearance before the Privilege Committee. Learned Advocate General submitted that whatever documents are on record and on that basis, whatever pleas have been set up in memo of writ petition, do not disclose whether any final view of the matter has taken by the Privilege Committee. It was argued that petitioner cannot claim immunity from appearance before the Privilege Committee and this Court should not precipitate the issues by premature entertaining of writ petition to examine whether or not, what is alleged, falls within the purview of breach of privilege because that issue has yet to be originally decided by the Privilege Committee. Learned Advocate General has referred to Rule 236 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and submitted that if and when final report is submitted by the Privilege Committee, the same will have to be laid by the Speaker of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly before the House, which stage has yet not reached. It is argued that it is not even case of the petitioner that Privilege Committee has taken any final view of the matter.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General and perusing the material on record, I find that petition in substance seeks to challenge three summons issued to the petitioner calling upon her to appear before the Privilege Committee. This Court is not prima-facie inclined to hold that petitioner enjoys immunity from appearance before the said committee. And, at the same time, this Court also does not want to express any opinion on the matter at the premature stage, as rightly argued by the learned Advocate General, that what is attributed to the petitioner is at all a breach of privilege. This is an issue, which is yet to be decided by the Privilege Committee and it goes without saying that there is no reason why the privilege committee before taking any final view of the matter, would not take into consideration the explanation of the petitioner upon supplying the material adverse to her. This Court therefore obviously cannot beforehand take a decision for the Privilege Committee to decide whether alleged act of the petitioner tantamounts to breach of privilege because Privilege Committee has so far not formed any such definite opinion. As regards the warrant of arrest issued for procuring attendance of the petitioner, the sufficient material has not placed on record as to whether it is a bailable warrant of arrest or non-bailable warrant of arrest. However, it is claimed on the basis of the news paper reports that it was actually a warrant of arrest. Even if that be so, that warrant of arrest was issued for procuring attendance of the petitioner on a particular date/dates. That warrant of arrest issued has now thus outlived its purpose. Therefore, apprehension of the petitioner that she may be arrested on the strength of that warrant of arrest, appears to be more illusory then real because she cannot now be arrested on such arrest warrant.
It is of course trite that this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review, can examine validity of any final decision even on the question of breach of privilege in the scope of Article 194(3) of the Constitution of India but law is also well settled that the Legislative Assembly is free to regulate its own procedure and this Court will not decide the manner in which the Assembly or its Committees have to proceed. It will be premature to presume that report of the Privilege Committee would in all probability be adverse to the petitioner and if at all adverse to her, what final view would be taken by the House on such report.
Petitioner is therefore required to appear before the Privilege Committee at any date that may be fixed by that committee and communicate her preparedness to the Secretary of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly to so appear before the Privilege Committee as per the date fixed by them and conveyed to her by Secretary of the Assembly. While so appearing, petitioner may apply for permission to appear along with her advocate and also obtain material/documents adverse to her that may have been submitted against her by the Women & Child Welfare Committee. If petitioner submits to the jurisdiction of the Privilege Committee this way, it is expected of the Privilege Committee to exercise generosity/magnanimity without taking any coercive measures against the petitioner by not enforcing her arrest considering that she is a Woman Police Officer and further that she has submitted to the jurisdiction and the said Committee upon hearing the petitioner, shall take final view of the matter. The petition is therefore disposed of with direction to the petitioner to appear before the Secretary of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly at 11.00 a.m. on 29.10.2012 along with her written applications to the above effect expressing her preparedness to submit her explanation before the Committee.