Thread by @barandbench

Madras HC hears fresh plea by DMK’s MK Stalin and other DMK MLAs challenging the Privilege Committee notice issued recently for bringing gutka packets to the legislative assembly floor in 2017.

@mkstalin
@arivalayam

After a Madras HC Division Bench recently quashed the Privilege Committee Notice issued over the issue in 2017, another Privilege Committee notice was issued earlier this month.

Read more on the HC's earlier verdict:

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana is hearing the plea challenging the fresh privilege committee notice.

Petitioners' (DMK MLAs) Counsel recounts that Madras HC in its verdict quashing the first Privilege notice had observed that the carrying of the Gutka to the assembly floor CANNOT be seen as “transportation etc. for the purpose of consumption”, which is banned under the law.

Another counsel for the petitioners argues: Intention for displaying the Gutka packets was to promote the ban.

He notes that the earlier High Court judgment had also noted this, that the purpose for which it was being displayed was to highlight the failure to impose the ban

Counsel for petitioners, while referring to certain rules: Privilege Committee is not something that exercises power suo motu, a reference has to be made

In this case, the reference was made in 2017, which has been quashed

This is a stale issue. Can committee exercise power?

Advocate Amit Tiwari (for DMK MLAs) adds that the privilege committee is therefore without jurisdiction and should be quashed.

Tiwari has also argued that the notice was malafide.

Advocate General Vijay Narayan rebuts that Advocate Tiwari has not read the full rule while responding to whether Privilege Committee has powers to issue the notice.

AG Narayan adds that it is open to the petitioners to raise objections before the Privilege Committee.

They have not participated in any of the Committee proceedings, save for seeking an adjournment.

Time has been given till September 24 to make their reply, Advocate General Vijay Narayan adds.

Court confirms with counsel that no fresh reference has been made to the privilege committee over the matter.

Rule 226 (of the Rules of procedure and conduct of business in the Legislative House) has the widest power, AG Narayan says, responding to the Court's query.

Rule 226 reads: Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Speaker may suo motu refer any question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report.

AG Vijay Narayan argues that the jurisdictional error referred to by the Madras HC while quashing the first privilege committee notice has now been cured.

The only issue was that the notice was wrongly worded, AG Vijay Narayan says.

Display of gutkha packets may or may not be prohibited, even the HC verdict says that: AG notes.

AG adds that it has to be decided with reference to the MLAs conduct, the HC said.

AG Vijay Narayan submits that the present notification states:

- Display without permission of the Speaker
- Disturbance to assembly proceedings
- Causing disorder, disrepute to the assembly

All these are well within jurisdiction: AG Vijay Narayan

I am saying, you can do whatever you want but take permission. This is an assembly floor. There are procedures: Advocate General Vijay Narayan

AG Vijay Narayan adds that the HC had also said, We leave it to the Privilege Committee to examine the case and in case it is still of the opinion that any breach has been committed of the House privileges, the petitioners may raise objections before the Committee.

Court observes in the passing: The first error is then committed by you for not raising this objection (earlier, which is part of the new Privilege Committee notice). You have already given up that.

Court says that if it finds that a prima facie case is made out by the petitioners', it may pass a stay.

AG Narayan: My Lordship may please hear my submissions

Court: I've been doing that

Narayan makes arguments urging the Court against a stay, submitting there is no need for it at this stage.

It is not my friend's case that the Assembly will be conducted today, tomorrow or even next week. I will file a counter and my Lordships may decide at the earliest: AG

AG Narayan: My learned friend has made no case that the axe could fall on his head.

AG Narayan: Let him reply to the notice. Let him participate in the proceedings. We do not know what decision the Privilege Committee is going to take. Even if they decide that breach of privilege has been made out, it has to be placed before the Assembly...

For two years, this case could not be taken up because there were other cases that went on for two years (referring to the 18 MLA disqualification case and the 11 MLA case): AG Vijay Narayan

Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana asks why some of these cases were posted before Division Benches.

There were about 8 different categories of cases (total about 40 cases, it observed), which the Court thought involved important questions of law, the Judge is told.

Now it has become less important, so it has come before a single bench today: Court muses

#Breaking: Madras HC to pronounce orders tomorrow morning at 10.30 am on petitions by MK Stalin and other DMK MLAs challenging the Privilege Committee notice issued earlier this month for bringing gutka packets to the legislative assembly floor in 2017.

@mkstalin
@arivalayam