December 16, 2020 12:58:19 pm
Arnab goswami
The decision of both Houses of the Maharashtra State Legislature not to respond to any notification sent by the High Court or the Supreme Court on the motion for breach of privilege against Republic TV editor and host Arnab Goswami It has added a new twist to the debate on the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature.
What is the doctrine of the separation of powers?
The doctrine of the separation of powers is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India, although it is not specifically mentioned in its text. It implies that the three pillars of democracy, namely the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature, fulfill separate functions and act as separate entities. One of the characteristics of the doctrine is that an arm of the state should not interfere in the functioning of the other organs or exercise a function of another organ.
What resolution did the Maharashtra Assembly pass on Tuesday?
Questioning the limits of the powers of the judiciary, both Houses of the Maharashtra State Legislature passed proposals on Tuesday in which they state that they will not be aware of or respond to any notifications sent by the High Court or the Supreme Court on the motion for breach of privileges against the editor of Republic TV. and anchor Arnab Goswami. Both proposals established that responding to such notices could mean accepting that the judiciary can control the legislature and would be “incompatible with the basic structure of the Constitution.” The proposals were approved during the Two-day winter session which ended on Tuesday.
“The Constitution has established clear limits for the three organs of government: the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. Each body must respect these limits. No one should invade the territories of others, ”said spokeswoman Nana Patole.
“… Publicly, the legislature, the secretariat, their secretaries and other officials who respond to court notifications and other correspondence means, in a way, accepting that the judiciary can control the legislature and that it would be incompatible with the Basic Structure of the Constitution, ”said President Ramraje Naik Nimbalkar. 📣 Follow Express explained on Telegram
What are the reasons for the Maharashtra Assembly to pass such a resolution?
The genesis of the proposal is the motion of privilege filed by members of the Maharashtra government Vikas Aghadi against Republic TV editor and host Arnab Goswami. Two of these separate motions of privilege were presented on September 8 in the Legislative Assembly by Shiv Sena MLA Pratap Sarnaik vs. Goswami. In seeking admission of his motion, Sarnaik accused Goswami of using “derogatory language” and making baseless comments against Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and PCN Chairman Sharad Pawar. He further said that Goswami has frequently been insulting ministers, members of Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha during television debates.
Another was proposed in the Legislative Council the same day by Shiv Sena legislator Manisha Kyanade and Congressional legislator Bhai Jagtap. The proposal was referred by the President of the Legislative Council on November 3 to the Privileges Committee for investigation.
September 29 Goswami had transferred to the Supreme Court to challenge one of Sarnaik’s motions of privilege. While the court granted Goswami relief from arrest in the matter on November 6, the CS objected to a letter dated October 13 sent to Goswami by Deputy Secretary of the Maharashtra Legislative Secretary Vilas Athawale. The letter is alleged to have raised questions about how Goswami filed confidential proceedings in the Lower House regarding the breach of the motion of privilege against him before the Supreme Court without the permission of the president.
The CV stated that the content of the letter was “to intimidate the petitioner” and on November 6, the Supreme Court had issued a justifying note to Athawale asking him to explain why a contempt process should not be initiated against him for his letter to the journalist. .
Subsequently, Athavale had apologized to the SC and said that he had acted as instructed by the Speaker to send the letter. The Supreme Court on November 26 had said then that it could be “in all probability necessary to notify the President” to know his version on the matter. The proposal put forward by the Maharashtra Assembly is an attempt to guard against any such notice and to ensure that its officials or spokesperson are not asked to come forward against the court.
What legal provisions has the state assembly invoked when approving the proposal?
The proposal cites two articles of the constitution as the basis for its argument. These are articles 194 of the Constitution, which establish the powers and privileges of the Chambers of Legislatures. Article 194 establishes that there shall be freedom of expression in the Legislature of each State and no member of the Legislature of a State shall be responsible for any proceeding in any court with respect to something said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee of the itself, and no person shall be responsible with respect to the publication by or under the authority of a House of such Legislature of any report, document, votes or proceedings.
Article 212 establishes that the validity of any procedure in the Legislature of a State may not be questioned on the basis of an alleged irregularity in the procedure and no official or member of the Legislature of a State to whom powers are conferred by or under This Constitution to regulate the procedure or conduct of business or to maintain order in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court with respect to the exercise by it of those powers.
Has there been a precedent for a similar proposal to be passed in the Maharashtra Assembly?
In 2010, the MLA Yashomati Thakur Congress had filed a motion of privilege against Shrinivas Karve, head of the caste verification committee. The officer challenged the motion in court and the Bombay High Court subsequently issued a subpoena to the MLA and notified officials of the legislature.
Subsequently, in April 2011, the state assembly passed a resolution to deny the summons presented to office holders and members of the assembly by a court. While the MLA did not have to appear in court, Karve in 2013 received a one-day civil prison sentence by the State Legislative Assembly as part of the privilege proceedings.
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
.
