Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee on Thursday did not accept the privilege motion against The Pioneer but strongly criticised the article in question and ruled that "gross breach of privilege had been committed".
He warned that in future reckless and contumacious (obstinately disobedient or rebellious) conduct indulged in by who-so-ever may be will be dealt with in the appropriate manner.
Giving his ruling on the notice for privilege moved by Samajwadi Party member Ramjilal Suman and five others, Mr Chatterjee fully gave vent to his anger against the observations made in the article, describing them as grossly libellous and amounting to contempt of the Presiding Officer of the House and thereby of the entire House. He said the article had not enhanced the prestige of the media either and hoped that the fraternity, to which the correspondent belongs, will consider the matter in its proper perspective.
Expressing his strong passion, the Speaker said, "One wonders what is the dignity and prestige of this august House, when it has a Presiding Officer with such vices and negative attributes as has been depicted in the impugned article?" Concluding that the article was a deliberate affront to the House, he added, "I believe that the disapprobation by large sections of this Hon'ble House... was sufficient reproach, and it will be beneath the dignity of this great Institution to take further note of the motivated imputations in the impugned article. I do not give my consent as requested and I treat this matter as closed."
In an unusually lengthy observation, Mr Chatterjee pointed out, "In the impugned article, it has been alleged amongst others, that the present Speaker of Lok Sabha has extra-territorial loyalty, that he is a committed Speaker, that he is partisan and that he has no sense of prestige, that he is highhanded in his behaviour and has no sense of fair play. It is well established that the speeches and writings, which cast reflection on the character and impartiality of the Speaker in the discharge of his duty, constitute breach of privilege and contempt of the House."
He added: "According to me, the position in law is beyond any doubt and to any one concerned with the parliamentary system it is clear that the impugned article not only reeks of malice but is highly contumacious in its conception and in its contents as it deliberately accuses the Speaker of partiality and reflects on his character and actions as Speaker, which amounts to gross breach of privilege of the Speaker and also of the House."
Mr Chatterjee also noted that it has been contended by some members that journalists enjoy the freedom of press and that one is entitled to criticise the Speaker and protested that he has not claimed any immunity from any bona fide criticism, which no doubt has also to take note of the privileges of this great Institution. "Freedom of Press, a cherished fundamental right in our country, is subject to reasonable restrictions, as contemplated by the Constitution itself, and cannot and does not comprise of deliberately tendentious and motivated attacks on the great institutions of this Republic and their officers and functionaries."
Mr Chatterjee also refuted the allegation that he was trying to gag one member (Mamata Bannerjee), arguing that the accusation is clearly motivated. "The member attended the House only on one day in the current monsoon session. She had given a notice of adjournment motion on an issue identical with the one, which had been fully discussed for several hours as an adjournment motion only on 26 July last and as such could not be allowed under rule 58 (V) to be raised again in the same session.
She had not participated in the discussion and no other notice or any intimation was ever submitted by her to the office of the Speaker of her intention to raise any other matter or issue. Thus there was no occasion for disallowing any matter, which the member wanted to raise during the whole of the 14th Lok Sabha," he explained.
Commenting on the ruling, The Pioneer Editor Chandan Mitra said, "The Speaker has exercised his right to reply and we are happy he has closed the chapter. We welcome his acknowledgement that he has 'not claimed any immunity from bona fide criticism'. We believe this a healthy and encouraging development. We hope this debate will help bring greater clarity to the grey area between uncodified privileges of the legislature and the democratic rights of the media."
