CASE COMMENTARY
Appellant: Ajit Mohan & ORS.
Respondent: Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi
Court: Supreme Court of India
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1088 OF 2020
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Dinesh Maheshwari, Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Date decided: July 08, 2021.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Amid the aftermath of the tumultuous communal riots that rocked various parts of Delhi in February 2020, the Legislative Assembly of Delhi took decisive action by forming a Committee. This Committee was entrusted with the crucial task of analysing the factors potentially contributing to communal disharmony and recommending strategies to alleviate such tensions.
During its proceedings, the Committee took note of numerous complaints implicating Facebook as a platform for disseminating hate speech and fueling communal discord. In response to these concerns, the Committee decided to summon Mr. Ajit Mohan, the Vice President and Managing Director of Facebook India, to provide testimony as a witness.
However, Facebook raised significant objections, arguing that forcing Mr. Mohan to testify on behalf of the company would infringe upon his constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and expression, as well as his right to privacy.
In defiance of Facebook’s objections, the Committee reaffirmed its authority, asserting that as a body appointed by the Legislative Assembly, it possessed specific powers and privileges. It justified the issuance of the summons as an exercise of its parliamentary privilege to compel individuals to provide evidence on matters of fact.
Moreover, the Committee underscored the potential ramifications of non-compliance with its summons, highlighting the adverse impact it could have on its ability to fulfill its functions and, consequently, the functioning of the Legislative Assembly itself. It warned that failure to adhere to the summons could result in proceedings against the petitioners for breaching parliamentary privilege and showing contempt toward the Legislative Assembly.
Faced with this adversarial stance, the Petitioners approached the Supreme Court to set aside the summons.
ISSUE
Whether being summoned to testify before a parliamentary or legislative sub-committee would violate a person’s right to privacy and right to freedom of speech under the Constitution.
CONTENTIONS
The petitioners argue that there is a lack of mutual respect and a significant difference of opinion between the organs of democracy, which has led to the current dispute. They express concerns about the summons issued by the Delhi Legislative Assembly’s Committee and the potential infringement of their fundamental rights. The petitioners challenge the legislative competence of the Assembly to investigate matters related to communal harmony and social media, given the constitutional demarcation of powers. They are particularly worried about the statements made by the Chairman of the Committee during a press conference, which they believe could prejudice the proceedings.
The respondents, likely representing the Assembly, argue that the Committee’s actions are within its constitutional powers and that the petitioners’ concerns are premature. They emphasize the importance of the Committee’s work in maintaining peace and harmony, and the need for such inquiries in the broader context of governance. The respondents may also contend that the Assembly’s powers are on par with other state legislatures and that the Committee’s proceedings should not be obstructed.
RATIONALE
- Whether being summoned to testify before a parliamentary or legislative sub-committee would violate a person’s right to privacy and right to freedom of speech under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Committee had the authority to issue summons to the Petitioners and dismissed the petition. The Court held that constitutional rights, including privacy, do not extend to the right to refuse to appear before a committee.
The Court first evaluated whether the Committee’s actions violated the Petitioners’ rights to freedom of speech and privacy. It determined that parliamentary or state legislative committees have the power to summon individuals if necessary for their functions. These committees are extensions of the legislature, and limiting their powers would weaken the legislature’s authority. The Court held that exercising the power to summon does not violate fundamental rights, and the rights to speech and privacy do not include the right to refuse a lawful summons.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Dr. Singhvi concluded by emphasizing that no judicial precedent, either from India or abroad, had been cited where a court intervened at the stage of summoning a witness by a legislative body or its sub-committee. He relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in C. Subramaniam v. The Speaker, Madras Legislative Assembly (AIR 1969 Mad 10). In this case, a former member of the Madras Assembly received a show-cause notice from the Speaker regarding a speech he made, questioning whether his conduct constituted a breach of privilege. The Full Bench of the High Court rejected the attempt to challenge the notice, deeming it premature since no action had yet been taken. This was considered akin to a writ of prohibition being denied due to the absence of any final action.
Additionally, in Union of India (2), the Court held that Article 31(1) should be interpreted as referring to the deprivation of property in contexts other than taxation. This discussion led to the conclusion that the observations in the Madhya Bharat case (3), cited by the petitioner, were not supportable. The decision in Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan (4), also cited by the petitioner, was based entirely on a concession by counsel and does not constitute a considered opinion on the matter.
INFERENCE
In a unanimous decision, the Court deliberated extensively on the jurisdiction of the Committee to issue summons to the Petitioners. After careful consideration, the Court concluded that the Committee indeed possessed the lawful authority to summon the Petitioners. Consequently, the petition filed by the Petitioners was dismissed by the Court.
In its detailed analysis, the Court meticulously examined whether the actions of the Committee had infringed upon the Petitioners’ rights to freedom of speech, including the right to remain silent, as well as their right to privacy under the Constitution. Drawing upon legal precedents and constitutional principles, the Court emphasized the crucial role of parliamentary or state legislative committees in the democratic process. It underscored that such committees, being extensions of the legislature, wield inherent powers to summon individuals and compel their attendance for the purpose of facilitating their legitimate functions. Restricting the authority of these committees, the Court noted, would inevitably undermine the efficacy of the legislative process itself.
Moreover, the Court highlighted the premature nature of the petition, asserting that no breach of fundamental rights had occurred at the stage of the Petitioners’ summons. The Court emphasized that the Petitioners retained the right to exercise their freedoms during their deposition before the Committee, including the right to refrain from answering questions that exceeded the scope of the inquiry.
Furthermore, the Court refrained from delivering a definitive judgment on the potential conflict between parliamentary privilege and individual rights to free speech and privacy. It cited a pending case before a seven-judge bench, indicating the complexity of the issue and the need for comprehensive deliberation.
In its concluding remarks, the Court reiterated its dismissal of the petition, affirming that the Petitioners’ rights to freedom of speech and privacy did not afford them the privilege of refusing to appear before the Committee in response to a lawful summons. The Court’s thorough examination and elucidation of these legal principles serve to underscore the nuanced considerations involved in balancing individual rights with the imperatives of democratic governance.
Amith Mathew Paul
Gujarat National Law University,Gandhinagar