‘Parl panel reports admissible in courts’
NEW DELHI: A constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra said on Wednesday that Parliamentary Standing Committee reports can be examined by courts for evaluating evidence, brushing aside the Centre’s contention that it would amount to encroaching on the domain of the legislature.
The admissibility of a parliamentary report would not, however, mean that the facts stated in it stand proven. The facts would need to be supported by evidence, the court said.
“There can be no dispute that a parliamentary standing committee report, being in the public domain, is a public document. Therefore, it is admissible under Section 74 of the Evidence Act and judicial notice can be taken of such a document as envisaged under Section 57(4) of the Evi- dence Act. There can be no scintilla of doubt that the said document can be taken on record. As stated earlier, it can be taken aid of to understand and appreciate a statutory provision if it is unclear, ambiguous or incongruous,” the top court said.
The issue over the admissibility of a parliamentary standing committee report arose in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by social activists challenging the Drugs Controller General of India and the Indian Council of Medical Research’s (ICMR) approval of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine in the country for cervical cancer patients.
The approval was given despite a parliamentary standing committee report opposing the use of the vaccine, manufactured by two companies — Glaxosmithkline Asia Private Limited and MSD Pharmaceuticals Private Limited.
The petitioners moved the court, seeking a ban on the use of the vaccine.
According to them, several women had died in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh after they were administered the vaccine during a pilot immunisation camp.
The petitioners had relied upon the parliamentary standing committee report to oppose the vaccine. The Centre and pharma companies opposed the petitioners’ reliance on the report, saying it would breach parliamentary privileges. The dispute was referred to a constitution bench which, without going into the merits of the vaccine’s quality, decided on the larger issue of parliamentary privileges.
“Parliamentary standing committee report can be taken aid of for the purpose of interpretation of a statutory provision wherever it is so necessary and also it can be taken note of as existence of a historical fact,” the court held.
However, it cannot be impinged or challenged in court. A published parliamentary standing committee report is in the public domain.
Quoting from it would not constitute breach of parliamentary privilege, but no member of Parliament or person can be made liable for what is stated in the course of proceedings before the committee or for a vote tendered and given, the court held. NEWDELHI: The Delhi high court Wednesday sought the response of the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation on a plea seeking a cap on the alleged “arbitrary” and “illegal” air fare charged by airlines.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Harishankar issued notices to both respondents on the petition which sought “greater transparency” and “accountability” in pricing of the airfares and asked for replies by August 8.
The plea, filed by activist Bejon K Misra, said that capping of air fares was “necessary” as airlines often charge more than 10 times the base rate when there is a shortage of seats.
It contended that the regulating authorities were acting as mute spectators. Janakpur is the capital of Nepal’s Province 2, which is the country’s only Madhesi dominated unit and also the only one of the seven provinces not ruled by the Oli-led communist alliance. It is governed by Madhesi parties and the Chief Minister is a Muslim Madhesi leader, Mohammed Lalbabu Raut.
Modi will be welcomed by Oli; he will visit the Janaki temple; and he will attend a civic reception and give a public speech, where he is expected to announce a bus service from Janak- The visit has stirred up a debate.
On the one hand are critics who believe that Modi is using religion for diplomacy, which does not behove a secular state like India. India must not get into this trap; given its multi religious framework, the leadership must stay away from religious symbols and association, goes this argument. It is also argued that a foreign visit is being used to push a domestic political agenda. They also read in it an effort by the ruling government to continue to push the agenda of a Hindu state in Nepal.
On the other hand are those who argue that religion is a perfectly legitimate tool of soft power diplomacy. In the neighbourhood, India’s pur to Ayodhya, the birthplace of Ram, which has considerable political significance for the BJP. In Nepal, the speech will be carefully watched for the messaging around Madhesi issues and how he recognises their aspirations while taking into account sensitivities of the host government in Kathmandu. In India, the visit is being watched closely for his visit to the temple town will happen a day before Karnataka goes to polls, and in the run-up to a possible court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi case and the 2019 polls.
THE SUPREME COURT SAID THE ADMISSIBILITY WOULD NOT, HOWEVER, MEAN THE FACTS STATED IN THE REPORT STAND PROVEN, AND WOULD NEED TO BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
strength is its cultural links, goes this argument, and these must be leveraged. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Nepalis come to India for pilgrimage and vice versa should be acknowledged, rather than skirted. Proponents of this theory point out that the Janakpur visit must be seen as a larger part of Indian cultural diplomacy, which is neither Nepal-specific nor Hindu-specific. Modi visited Pashupatinath in Kathmandu; the Toji temple in Japan; the Gangaramaya Temple in Sri Lanka; and the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in United Arab Emirates among other sites. He has also consciously highlighted India’s Buddhist heritage. This suggests India’s religious-cultural diplomacy is here to stay.