L.N. PHUKAN Vs. MOHENDRA MOHAN CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these two petitions iving rise to Civil Rules Nos. 11/64 and 11/61 the notices issued to the Petitioners by the Committee of Privileges, Assam Legislative Assembly, Shilloug and the proceedings pending before the said Committee, are sought to be quash ad. The Petitioner Shri L.N. Phukanb Civil Rule No. 6 is the Chief Editor of the Assam Tribune, a daily newspaper issued from. Gauhati and the Petitioners in Civil Rule No. 11 arc Shri Salish Chandra Kakoti. Editor, The Assam Tribune, Gauhati, Shri Kunjalal Thapa, Printer and Publisher, The Assam Tribune, Gauhati and Shri Naresh Rajkhowa Special Representative, The Assam tribune Shillong. In both these petitions Shri Mohendra Mohan Choudhury, Speaker, Assam Legislative Assembly has been impleaded as opposite party No. 1 and Shri D. llazarika, Deputy Speaker Assam Legislative Assembly and Chairman, Committee of Privileges of the Legislative Assembly Assam as opposite party No. 2. Opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 are the other members of the Committee of Privileges, Assam Legislative Assembly and opposite party No. 7 is the Secretary of the Assam Legislative Assembly.

(2.) IN April 1962 the Government of Assam appointed a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 (Act -LX of 1952) consisting of Shri Ram Labhaya, Retired Judge of the Assam High enquiry into as per Notifies the month of inquiry submi Assam. In the -5th August 19 A the findings Agricultural based on a in the Assam To summary of the Petitioner notice dated i Cary of the to show cause as to why a mended to the Assam Legislation of the August 1963. Committee ol rule No,V;e/6' Assembly and from the 21s time for three any reply to petition was proceedings 1 stayed. The the 30th Jani.

(3.) THOUGH Mr. Goswami for the Petitioners has covered a large ground in his argument, the main points urged by him are twofold. Firstly he has contended that as the Ham Labhaya Commission was appointed under the Commission of Enquiry Act, the report of the Commission cannot be treated to be a part of the proceedings of the House or the document of the House and thus the publication of the report or the comment on the report, on the face of it, does not constitute the breach of the privileges of the house. In fact his argument is that the House has no privilege to stop the publication ot the report of an independent body constituted under the Commission of inquiry Act and that this Court can determine what is the privilege of the Legislature. He has secondly contended that as the report itself dealt with the conduct of certain officers including the past conduct of the present Speaker of the House when he was a Minister and not his conduct as the member of the present House, the publication of such a report cannot be regarded as lowering the dignity of the House and thus neither the publication contravenes the privilege of the House nor does the matter come within the ambit of the recognised privileges ot the House.