Page 1 of 4
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/
ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 03 Issue 13
December 2017
Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 531
Power of Parliament to Punish the
Contempt
CH.ARCHANA1, D.RAJESHWAR RAO2, P.SRINIVASA RAO3
LLM1
, Sr.Advocate1,2
Introduction
A breach of privilege of either House of Legislature
constitutes ‘contempt’ of the House which is
punishable, as if it was a contempt of a Court of
record.
Contempt of Parliament is a very wide expression
comprising different categories of acts, the common
feature of which is obstruction or interference (actual
or constructive) with the functions of the House or
any member or officer thereof in the discharge of his
duty. The sweep of this expression is, however, very
wide and has been interpreted to include anything,
which directly or indirectly tends to infringe the
‘privileges’ of the Legislature [1]
.
In the words of D. D. Basu [2] “a contempt may be
committed by any act or utterance which undermines
the dignity of the House, even though it may not
involve the violation of any specific privilege of
Legislature.” Thus, of the numerous instances of
contempt of Parliament which are capable of being
committed by or through the press, in particular, may
be enumerated, without being exhaustive as follows:
1. Any publication which reflects on the dignity of a
House of Parliament or any Committee thereof
even though no specific privilege of the House
may have been involved, and even though there
may be an exact precedent for such offence.
2. Publishing words reflecting upon the character,
conduct or proceedings of the House [3]
.
3. Publishing any reflection upon a Member,
relating to his capacity as a Member of the
House, e.g., an article
imputing that Member’s act, as such, under the
influence of intoxication, bribe or the like [4]
.
4. Any attempt to influence the Parliamentary
conduct of a Member by improper means, e.g., by
publishing a poster that the names of Members
who vote or against a
particular measure before Parliament would be
published as public ‘enemies’ [5]
5. Any act when even indirectly brings the
House into
‘odium’, contempt or ridicule [6]
.
6. Publishing false [7] or perverted [8] reports of
debates or proceedings in the House or any
Committee thereof, or of any particular member’s
speech therein, [9]
7. Premature publication of the report of a
Committee or its Minutes of Dissent or the
evidence taken by it, before the
Committee’s report is presented to the House,
constitutes contempt. But there is no such
contempt unless the Committee had been
appointed by the House or by the Government in
pursuance of a resolution of the House, or
otherwise at its instance.
8. To publish or give for publication, any Question,
Resolution or Motion, before they are admitted
by the Chair. The Rules also prohibit the
publication of answers
to questions proposed to be given by Ministers
before they have actually been given on the floor
of the House [10]
.
9. Comment on a matter which is pending the
decision of the Speaker or of the Committee of
Privileges is regarded as a contempt on the
analogy of Contempt of Court committed by
commencing on matter ‘sub judice’.
10. While lawfully admitted to the House, a journalist
should desist from any misconduct which
interrupts or disturbs
the proceedings of the House or of any
Committee thereof
[11]
.
It is, however, difficult to enumerate all instances of
contempt of the House. Comments in newspapers or
statements made by individuals casting reflections on
the proceedings of the House, or on the character or
conduct of the members collectively, or of individual
members, and thereby lowering their prestige in the
eyes of the public; comments on the officers of the
House casting asperisons on them, misreporting or
misrepresentation of the proceedings of the House or
of the speech of a member are some of the examples
which have been held to constitute contempt [12]
.
In India, the common modes used for punishing its
contempt by the House are, admonition, reprimand,
imprisonment, exclusive as established and
Page 2 of 4
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/
ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 03 Issue 13
December 2017
Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 532
recognized by Indian precedents. A few cases may be
mentioned her to illustrated the point.
In Janagarajana case (1965) [13], the newspaper
carried an article : “Why does Bhansaheb Bandokar
not attend the Assembly” ? it criticized the tamasha
going on in the
Assembly, which was described as a fish market
where many members spoke at once and which was
“a waste of public money and time”. The Committee
of Privileges found that the above comment brought
the speaker, the House and its legislatures into
ridicule and contempt. The House, therefore, has no
opinion but to imprison the Editor for contempt after
the refused to tender an apology.
In Karanjia’s case
[14], reprimand was awarded after
Karanjia appeared in response to a notice issued by
the House. Reprimand was resorted to in Parliament,
in the case of the Editor of the Blitz Weekly of
Bombay, who had published a derogatory criticism of
the speech of Member (Acharya Kripalani) in the
House of the People. The Committee of Privileges of
the house reported it to be a case of gross breach of
privilege and recommended that the Editor should be
called to the Bar of the House and reprimanded,
while the press Gallery Card (for attending sitting or
Parliament) of New
Delhi correspondent of the Journal should be
cancelled until he gives a full and adequate apology.
The House accepted this recommendation [15]. After
an unsuccessful attempt to move the Supreme Court
under Article 32, the Editor submitted to the notice of
the House to attend and received the reprimand of the
date fixed thereof.
In another case, Mr. K. K. Tewary, a Minister in the
Previous Government, was similarly reprimanded by
the Speaker, for having brought the House into
indignity [16]
.
In Thaniram case
[17], a severe reprimand was given
to a person who had questioned the partiality of the
Speaker is not permitting a question about the Bangla
Leader. Mujibur Rehman.
In Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha [18], four persons
had been removed from the visitors’ gallery by the
Marshal, when they began shouting slogans and
distributing leaflets, interrupting the proceedings of
the House. The Committee of Privileges, which met
on a short notice, described the action of these
persons as “objectionable and condemnable” and
“against the dignity of the House.” The Committee
recommended that since they had refused to express
regret, they should be sent to jail. The House ordered
that the members be imprisoned ‘until further
orders’. They were released after six days upon a
motion of the Leader of the House [19]
.
For similar misconduct, a member of the Chhatra
Sangharsa
Samiti was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment,
by the
Bihar Assembly [20]
.
In Nagrik case
[21], an Editor who made critical
remarks on the alleged leak of a budget by the Chief
Minister was subjected to simple imprisonment for a
day.
Obviously these cases show that the Legislature has
used these powers keeping in view the attitude of the
journalist. Secondly, the House has been using this
power against the Editor to assert its authority rather
than finding solution to the issue. Thus,
inconsequential press reportings even if harsh in tone
are not taken seriously. In the Hindustan Times case
[22] the Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha refused to
proceed even though members of Parliament had
been compared to streetgangs.
Since the Legislature cannot be supposed to be
vindicative against an individual, it would ordinarily
accept unconditional apology as exonerating
contempt, in ordinary cases, provided it is offered at
a proper stage of the proceedings ;
In Aryavarat’s case
[23], on August 26, 1968 Shri
Yogendra Sharma a member of Parliament from
Bihar sought to raise a question on privilege on the
ground that a Hindi Daily, the Aryavarata published
form Patna had misreported his speech in Lok Sabha
on Czechosolvak crisis. The Aryavarat pleaded that it
has published the report as it had obtained from
‘Hindustan Samachar’, a news Agency, though it
profusely apologized for publishing the report
without knowing that it was not a correct report. ‘The
Hindustan Samachar’, though it pleaded that in the
rush and hurry of publication certain discrepancies
are bound to creep without any malafide involved in
it, also offered apologies for the incorrect report. The
News Agency thereafter published a clarification and
the clarification was published in the Aryavarata. In
that circumstances, the Committee of Privileges did
not take any further action.
In Maharashtra Time’s case
[24], Shri D.N. Patodia, a
member
of the Lok Sabha raised a question of privildge
against the editor. Printer and publisher of a
Maharashtra daily the
‘Maharashtra Times’ and on Shri B.B. Pranjape on
the ground that a report had appeared in that daily to
the effect that the said Paranjape had told some
correspondents of that daily that
“he has detailed information about how much money
Father Ferror has paid to same of the M.P’s to help
him to get the extension order.” The matter was
referred to the Committee of Privileges. The editor
and Printer and Mr. Paranjape regretted for the news
Page 3 of 4
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/
ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 03 Issue 13
December 2017
Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 533
published regarding Father Ferror’s affairs and
offered apologies. The Committee recommended for
no further action in this respect and the House
accepted this.
In Organiser’s case
[25] in its issue of the 15th March,
1969, the
‘Organiser’ carried a comment on the alleged speech
of Shri
Venkatasubbiah a Congress Party Parliamentary
Secretary, where the honourable member is reported
to have said that he was not surprised of the election
in West Bengal because he saw it as a result of “the
impact of PekingPindi axis on the
West Bengal People”. In its comment of “organizer’
said that
Shri Venkatasubbiah did not give his reasons for
astounding assertion” may be because ... or better
still because nothing shames a congressman more
than to confess that he is born of
Hindu Mother.”
The speaker thought fit to ask the Editor of the
Newspaper to state what he had to say in the matter
before he took any further action. The Editor of the
‘the Organizer’ expressed his regret that the ‘half
sentence’ crept into the comment. No further action
was taken in the matter by the House after his
expression of regret by the Editor of ‘the Organizer’.
In ‘Kalinga’s case [26] Shri P.K. Deo, a M.P. from
Orissa raised a question of privilege on July 13, 1967
in the Lok
Sabha against the the ‘Kalinga’, on Oriya daily, on
the ground tha the paper maliciously misreported his
speech on July 3, 1967. The matter was referred to
the Committee of Privileges which took serious view
of the matter. Although the Editor regretted for the
incorrect publication of Mr. Deo’s speech in
Parliament, the Committee was not satisfied with this
regret and it ordered the Editor to publish its
contradiction. After the publication of necessary
correction and regret by Editor of the
‘Kalinga’, the committee recommended that no
further action should be taken in the matter.
In ‘Hindustan Times’ Case [27] Shri Madhu Limye
raised a question of privilege on June 6, 1967 against
the Editor, columnist and proprietor of the
‘Hindustan Times’ for publishing on article entitled
“Shades of Star Chamber” in its issue of the 4th June,
1967 wherein reflection were case on proceedings of
Lok Sabha in course of the debate on the Birla
affairs. The matter was referred to the committee of
Privileges, which called Shri Mulgaokar, the writer of
Article to give evidence before it. Both in his written
statement and his evidence before the Committee,
Shri Mulgaokar said that he had no intention to cast
reflection on the Parliament or its Member was not
prepared to go beyond that. The committee accepted
his explanation and dropped the case. The same
matter was, however raised as a question of Privilege
in Rajya Sabha by Shri Chandra Shekhar and it was
referred to committee of Privileges. The Committee
of Privileges of Rajya Sabha took just contrary views
to the finding of committee of Privileges of the Lok
Sabha and the article taken as a whole “does not, in
the opinion of committee, constitute a breach of
privilege or contempt of the House.” The committee
also quoted, with approval, the observations made by
Mr.
Gladstone in 1888 in ‘the Times’ case:
“Breach of privilege is very wide net, and it would be
very undesirable that notice should be taken in this
House of all cases in which honourable members are
unfairly criticized. Breach of privilege is not exactly
to be defined. It is rather to be held in the air to be
exercised on proper occasions when in the opinion of
the House, a fit case for its exercise occurs. To put
this weapon unduly in force is to invite a combat
upon unequal terms wheresoever and by whomsoever
carried on...
Indeed, it is absolutely necessary that there should be
freedom of comment. The freedom of comment may,
of course, be occasionally abused; but I do not think
it is becoming the dignity of the House of notice that
abuse of it.”
The committee of Privileges of Rajya Sabha,
therefore recommended that no action is called for on
this complaint and House accepted the report of the
committee [28]
.
This case of Hindustan Times is important for the
two different attitude to the article taken by the two
House of Parliament.
In the Indian Express case
[29] a special
correspondent was excused for falsely reporting that
a legislator had apologized for what he had said
because there was no question of malafide on his
part. An expression of regret and a warning was
considered appropriate to dispose of the case.
In Hindustan’s case
[30] the Hindustan’s leading
daily of Hindi of Delhi published an editorial article
on June 2, 1967 related to the conduct of the
members of Parliament while discussing Hazare
report. On this editorial question were raised in both
Rajya Sabha and in Lok Sabha. In Rajya Sabha the
matter was referred to committee of privilege and
before the committee the Editor, of course, tendered
his “deep and unqualified regret”. The committee
however came to the finding that “a perusal of the
impunged editorial will leave no doubt in the mind of
any one that it has been written in bad taste and
without a sense of responsibility, while the
committee is conscious that Press should have the
