CASE: Pandit M. S. M. Sharma vs. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha And Others on 12 December, 1958
The editor of Searchlight (M.S.M Sharma) a newspaper in Patna, in 1954 went to the proceedings of the Patna Legislative Assembly. In attendance a particular MP went on with a series of vilification and abuses. As the entire episode finished the Speaker stated that this event must be expunged from records and that it cannot be published.
The editor of Searchlight despite the awareness of the subject – matter not to be published in the newspaper went on and made available the entire event word to word in the newspaper the very next day.
The editor was sent a show cause notice after an year when this event happened by asking him to appear and give a reason as to why not to act against i.e. Prosecute him for violating the law which allows the Speaker who is the Supreme authority in the House. Though, this action of the Privileges committee was a pure act of malice. The editor in order moved to the court under article 32 of the Indian Constitution saying that he had the Freedom of Speech under article 19 (1) (a) and that it was his fundamental right which was inviolable and the speakers order was restriction to his right to freedom of speech under the above stated article 19(1)(a).
However, the High court ruled in favour of the Speaker, after which the editor went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a statement which said that the speaker is the law in the House and his law has to be obeyed on any material got from the House.
This was a milestone decision where the Government’s Privileges were challenged. The ruling was in favor of the government.
Further the aspect where HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION was to be involved under this case was stated as follows:
“In England there was no written constitution. The House of Commons had claimed the right to prohibit publication but in fact and in actual practice never exercised that right. The American Constitution also granted full freedom to publish the proceedings of the House including the expunged portions. That being so, it was for the Court to interpret Article 194(3) harmoniously with Article 19(1) and the provisions of the former had to be consistent with fundamental rights granted under the Constitution. In England the Parliament is supreme and there is no written constitution, but here the Constitution is supreme. The right to expunge could be claimed only for the purpose of official record. They could not claim a total prohibition. There was a common basis for this in both American and English democratic systems. The people had the right to know as to what was happening in the House to enable them to exercise their franchise properly. If people have a right to see and hear the proceedings, other people who are not able to be in the House have a right to know through published proceedings.”
BY: DEVIKA SHARMA
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS