NEW DELHI: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court frowned at the tone and tenor of the “coercive” subpoena issued by the Raghav Chadha-led peace and harmony committee of the Delhi assembly seeking the appearance of Facebook India Vice President Ajit Mohan, prompting the legislature to postpone the hearing involving the social media platform official until October 15.
Finding things difficult before a bench of judges Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, Lead Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi skillfully rescued the Chadha-led panel from embarrassment that the court suspended the subpoena. Singhvi said no proceedings related to Mohan would be carried out while the court deals with the matter.
“The chief counsel for the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, on instructions, declares that the meeting scheduled for today (Wednesday) is already postponed and no further meetings will be scheduled until the next date,” the bank said.
The panel’s speech was criticized by leading advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Mohan and Facebook, respectively. They cited the assembly panel’s two subpoenas to argue that the suggestion that the non-appearance could be construed as a violation of House privilege made Mohan’s directive a coercive exercise. They also questioned whether the panel had jurisdiction to investigate the Delhi riots, which as a matter of public order fell directly into the domain of the government and the Union Parliament.
They also doubted that an individual’s failure to appear before a committee of the assembly could be construed as a violation of the privilege of the House. “As lawyers, parliamentary panels ask us to appear and explain legal positions related to many issues. If we cited our inability to appear before him, would that be construed as a violation of privilege? The classical understanding of the constitutional provisions related to the violation of privileges related to anyone who obstructs the functioning of the Chamber ”, they said.
Salve and Rohatgi also drew the court’s attention to Chadha prima facie press conferences that claimed Facebook was complicit in the Delhi riots. Singhvi tried to deflect the focus on the alleged unsustainability of the subpoena by saying that it was merely a warning and that it was not a violation of privilege.
The bank said: “What you (Singhvi) are discussing may be the right course. But that is not what is indicated in the summons of the petitioners. Now that they have received good advice, you should advise them to correct the tone and tenor of the announcements. ”
Importantly, the SC also issued notices to Lok Sabha and Rajya sabha as Salve said, although the petitioners did not seek redress against the two Houses of Parliament, they should be parties to the process “because in their perception, there may be some interaction between the powers of the Delhi assembly and the secretariats in question.”
The petitioners had called the subpoena a premeditated exercise, given Chadha’s accusation of Facebook’s complicity in the Delhi riots. Singhvi said the panel was involved in an investigative exercise into the Delhi riots, as many witnesses testified about the misuse of Facebook during the clashes. “The panel wishes to devise a mechanism to stop the misuse of Facebook during such situations in the future,” he said.
Mohan’s petition read: “There is no law that empowers a state legislature, including a committee formed by that legislature, to take coercive action against any person unless the person obstructs or impedes its legislative functions. The rights and freedoms of people are protected by the fundamental rights guaranteed by articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and no coercive actions can be taken against any citizen unless such action has been authorized by law ”.
.
