Parliament panel reports can be used in court: SC
A 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed reliance on the Parliamentary Standing Committee reports in the court proceedings but held that their validity cannot be challenged.
There were three separate but concurring judgments -one by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar, second by Justices A K Sikri and Dr D Y Chandrachud and third by Ashok Bhushan.
The judgment will be of great help in the PILs as the standing committee reports that are often critical of the government can be now cited in courts for relief to people.
The Bench discussed international position of parliamentary committees in England, USA, Canada and Australia and also quoted distinguished South African Judge Albie Sachs on constitutional transformation from his book 'The Strange Alchemy of Life and Law.'
A 2-judge Bench had referred a PIL of Kalpana Mehta and others relying on a standing committee report on deaths caused by a vaccine of two firms cleared by the Drugs Controller General of India and Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for preventing cervical cancer of women that was tried in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh.
The government and the two pharmaceutical firms had objected to reliance on the standing committee reports, leading to constitution of the 5-judge Bench to decide.
The first verdict pronounced by the Chief Justice in the Court said Parliamentary Standing Committee reports are admissible under Section 74 of the Evidence Act and they can be used for interpretation of a statutory provision, but such reports cannot be impinged or challenged in a court of law.
It also held that the standing committee reports being in public domain can invite fair comments and criticism which will not violate the parliamentary privileges because the citizens do not really comment upon any MP.
In case of the contentious case, the Court said the petitioner can produce facts through affidavits and the court can render its verdict by way o independent adjudication.
Justice Ashok Bhushan, however, deferred that admissibility of a parliamentary committee report as evidence does not mean that the facts stated in it stand proved. "When issues of facts come before a Court of law for adjudication, the Court is to decide the issues on the basis of evidence and materials brought before it," he ruled.