Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the ongoing matter of Kalpana Mehta v Union of India before the Supreme Court’s Constituion bench, Senior Counsel, Harish Salve, submitted that Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) Report is part of the product of Parliament, and is intended to assist Parliament in its working. He further submitted that the report has a "persuasive" value but was neither binding, nor could it be used to prove disputed facts, that there can be no impeachment of things said in Parliament, and MPs have absolute right to free speech in Parliament.
The issue whether a parliamentary panel report can be relied upon in judicial proceedings arose when the petitioners referred to the 81st Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee of December 22, 2014, allegedly indicting some Pharma firms for conducting trials of the controversial Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine. Under the division of powers, the actions of MP’s is beyond the scope of judicial review and hence the report is beyond judicial scrutiny but since the report is itself is under question, court is facing the problem to adjudicate the matter. Now, the court upon is examining as to how to adjudicate the matter once a party contests the parliamentary committee report. The court has to strike a balance between judicial review and the freedom of speech and expression granted to MP’s under the constitution.
The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra reserved its verdict after hearing arguments on the matter for almost seven days from a number of senior lawyers including Attorney General K K Venugopal, Harish Salve, Colin Gonsalves and Anand Grover. The court has asked the parties to file their written submissions within a week.
86540
103860
630
114
59824