Updated: December 16, 2020 7:59:16 am
Pratap Sarnaik accused Arnab Goswami of using “derogatory language” and “making baseless comments” against CM Uddhav Thackeray and NCP Chairman Sharad Pawar, and “frequently insulting” ministers and deputies during television debates. (Archive)
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 of default. 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 days Winter session which ended on Tuesday.
In the State Assembly, the proposal was declared “approved unanimously” by President Nana Patole. It stated that President Patole and Vice President Narhari Zirwal would not respond to any notices or subpoenas issued by the Supreme Court.
Also in the Legislative Council the proposal was approved unanimously, said President Ramraje Naik Nimbalkar. It stated that no notice or summons issued by the High Court or the Supreme Court will be heard if Goswami challenges the Breach of Privilege proceedings.
“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 spokesman 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, ”President Nimbalkar said.
While no opposition to the measure was recorded, BJP MLA Rahul Narvekar said in the Assembly that passing such a motion would set a “wrong precedent.”
The proposals mark the last chapter of the confrontation that began after a Movement due to breach of privileges he was moved into the Assembly by Pratap Sarnaik of Shiv Sena on September 8 against Goswami. Sarnaik accused Goswami of using “derogatory language” and “making baseless comments” against Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and CPN President Sharad Pawar and of “frequently insulting” ministers and parliamentarians during television debates.
On November 6, upon hearing Goswami’s petition challenging the notice of breach of privilege, the Supreme Court issued a notice of contempt to the Deputy Secretary of the Assembly who, in a letter, had challenged Goswami for addressing the high court against the notice and submit to it “confidential communications” from the President and the House Privileges Committee.
On November 26, the Supreme Court had said that it might be “in all probability necessary to notify the President” to know his version of the matter.
On Tuesday, spokesman Patole initiated the motion of the Chambers of Finance and cited articles 194 of the Constitution, which establish the powers and privileges of the Chambers of Legislatures, and 212, which refers to the courts that do not investigate the procedures of the legislature.
At the Council, President Nimbalkar addressed a separate Violation of Privilege motion filed by Shiv Sena lawmaker Manisha Kyanade and Congressional lawmaker Bhai Jagtap on September 8. The proposal was submitted on November 3 by the President to the Privilege Committee for investigation.
“The possibility of Goswami challenging the proceedings for breach of privileges of the Upper House in the Supreme Court cannot be ruled out … so, with due respect to the High Court and the Supreme Court, no response should be given to the notifications , subpoenas issued by them and any other correspondence from Goswami through their attorneys in accordance with the provisions of Articles 194 and 212 of the Constitution to maintain the sovereign position of the Legislature, ”said Nimbalkar.
Referring to an earlier case involving a government official and an MLA, Nimbalkar noted that at that time the House passed a proposal stating that no response should be given to notices from the Superior Court and the Supreme Court.
“Therefore, if the Goswami challenges the proceedings for breach of privileges in the High Court or the Supreme Court by means of a written request, the president of the Legislative Council, the head of the privilege committee of the Legislative Council, the members of the House , the clerks and other officials should not give any response to court correspondence and should not appear before the High Court and the Supreme Court, “added Nimbalkar.
The President said that the secretariat of the legislature will communicate the constitutional provisions and well-established customs and traditions to the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and the Advocate General for notification to the Supreme Court, if Goswami challenges the Breach of Privilege procedure.
However, speaking in the Assembly, BJP’s Narvekar said: “The Supreme Court’s notification to the undersecretary in the case was an exception to the language used in the letter written by him to the editor. It has not in any way invaded the rights of the legislature to legislate. If the legislature passes such a motion, it will set a wrong precedent. “
But Parliamentary Affairs Minister Anil Parab said the proposal was limited to maintaining the president’s esteem for the president and ensuring that the presiding authority is protected from judicial scrutiny in matters of legislation.
Both Houses also extended the time given to their privilege committees to decide the motion against Goswami, and another on the comments approved by actor Kangana Ranaut, amid objections from the Opposition.
.
