A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India, in Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others (1959 [Supp.] SCR 806), addressed a significant constitutional issue involving the conflict between parliamentary privileges and fundamental rights. The petitioner, the editor of the Patna-based English daily Searchlight, faced privilege proceedings initiated by the Bihar Legislative Assembly for publishing the full text of a speech made in the Assembly. Certain portions of this speech had been expunged by the Speaker. The petitioner claimed that this action infringed upon his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents argued that under Article 194(3), the Legislature enjoyed privileges equivalent to those of the British House of Commons, which included the authority to prohibit such publications.

The Court delivered a split judgment. The majority held that Article 194(3) was not subordinate to Article 19(1)(a). They held that privileges conferred under Article 194(3) were constitutional rights themselves, equivalent in status to fundamental rights, and not subject to judicial scrutiny under Article 32 unless laws made under the first part of Article 194(3) directly violated fundamental rights. However, Justice Subba Rao dissented, holding that the privileges under Article 194(3) must harmoniously coexist with fundamental rights and that Article 19(1)(a) would prevail in case of conflict.

The judgment clarified the scope of legislative privileges vis-à-vis fundamental rights and remains a cornerstone judgment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

Keywords: Legislative Privileges, Freedom of Speech, Article 19(1)(a), Article 194(3), Article 32, Judicial Review, Parliamentary Privilege, Indian Constitution.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others

ii) Case Number:
Petition No. 122 of 1958

iii) Judgement Date:
12 December 1958

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
S.R. Das C.J., N.H. Bhagwati, B.P. Sinha, K. Subba Rao, and K.N. Wanchoo, JJ.

vi) Author:
Chief Justice S.R. Das (majority); Justice Subba Rao (dissenting)

vii) Citation:
Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others (1959 [Supp.] SCR 806)

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Articles 19(1)(a), 21, 32, 105(3), 194(3), and 208 of the Constitution of India.

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Parliamentary Law, Freedom of Press, Judicial Review, Fundamental Rights, Legislative Privileges

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The present case arose in the post-independence period when the delicate balance between constitutional rights and parliamentary privileges came into sharp conflict. The petitioner, Pandit M.S.M. Sharma, was the editor of Searchlight, a widely read English daily in Patna. On May 30, 1957, during a debate in the Bihar Legislative Assembly, Shri Maheshwar Prasad Narayan Sinha, a Congress MLA, sharply criticized the Chief Minister, Dr. S.K. Sinha, and alleged nepotism and administrative irregularities.

Certain parts of the speech, specifically those referring to Mahesh Prasad Sinha, were ordered to be expunged by the Speaker under Assembly rules. However, the Searchlight published the speech in its entirety on May 31, 1957, including the expunged portions. This publication led to a privilege motion initiated by another member, Shri Nawal Kishore Sinha, and proceedings were launched against the petitioner for breach of privilege. The Privileges Committee, chaired by the Chief Minister himself, issued a notice to the petitioner to explain why action should not be taken.

The petitioner moved the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, challenging the constitutional validity of the privilege proceedings, alleging violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On May 30, 1957, during discussions on the state budget in the Bihar Legislative Assembly, MLA Shri Maheshwar Prasad Narayan Sinha delivered a controversial speech. He criticized the Chief Minister, alleging that the administration was unduly influenced by Mahesh Prasad Sinha, an ex-minister who had lost the election but allegedly exercised indirect control over government functioning.

Following this speech, the Speaker of the Bihar Legislative Assembly exercised his authority to expunge certain portions referring to Mahesh Prasad Sinha, deeming them objectionable. The official proceedings thus excluded these remarks. However, the Searchlight daily, in its issue dated May 31, 1957, published the speech in full, including the expunged portions.

Subsequently, on June 10, 1957, MLA Shri Nawal Kishore Sinha moved a privilege motion, asserting that the publication of expunged portions amounted to breach of the Assembly’s privilege. The House referred the matter to its Privileges Committee, chaired by the Chief Minister himself.

After a delay of over one year, on August 18, 1958, the Privileges Committee issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner first approached the Patna High Court under Article 226, but later withdrew that petition and approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, asserting infringement of his fundamental rights.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether publication of expunged portions from legislative proceedings violates legislative privilege under Article 194(3)?

ii. Whether the privileges under Article 194(3) override the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)?

iii. Whether the proceedings by the Privileges Committee violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21?

iv. Whether a bias existed in the constitution of the Privileges Committee chaired by the Chief Minister?

v. Whether the Privileges Committee became functus officio due to procedural delay and violation of Assembly rules?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The publication was a faithful reproduction of Assembly proceedings. Citizens have a right to know what happens in the Legislature, including expunged portions, as per democratic principles. The right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to publish accurate reports of Assembly debates. The petitioner cited Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950 SCR 594) and Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950 SCR 605) to emphasize the importance of press freedom as part of Article 19(1)(a)[5].

Further, the petitioner argued that Article 194(3) must be read harmoniously with Part III of the Constitution. Legislative privileges cannot override the fundamental rights of citizens, as established in Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636[5].

The petitioner also raised procedural objections. The Privileges Committee delayed its proceedings for over a year, violating Assembly rules and becoming functus officio. Rule 215 of the Assembly Rules required that the Privileges Committee submit its report within one month unless extended, which had not been done[5].

Moreover, the petitioner alleged mala fide intent. The Chief Minister chaired the Privileges Committee, leading to a conflict of interest since the speech criticized him directly. This violated principles of natural justice and impartiality[5].

Lastly, it was argued that the entire proceeding violated Article 21 since the threat of imprisonment without due process deprived the petitioner of his personal liberty.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The respondents argued that the Bihar Legislative Assembly, under Article 194(3), possessed powers and privileges similar to the British House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution. Therefore, publication of expunged parts constituted breach of privilege[5].

They emphasized that parliamentary privileges exist to protect the independence and dignity of legislative bodies. The Legislature’s right to prohibit the publication of expunged portions was part of these privileges. The respondents relied on May’s Parliamentary Practice and Wason v. Walter (1868) L.R. 4 Q.B. 73 to assert that expunged remarks are considered not to have been spoken and cannot be published[5].

Furthermore, the respondents argued that Article 19(1)(a) could not override constitutional provisions such as Article 194(3), since both provisions were part of the Constitution and stood on an equal footing. They relied on Ramjilal v. Income Tax Officer (1951 SCR 127) and Laxmanappa Hanmantappa v. Union of India (1955 SCR 769) to support this position[5].

The respondents also denied any mala fide intent, asserting that the Committee’s functioning was an internal matter of the Legislature, immune from judicial review.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.

ii. Article 21: Protection of personal liberty.

iii. Article 32: Constitutional remedy for enforcement of fundamental rights.

iv. Article 194(3): Powers, privileges, and immunities of State Legislatures.

v. Article 105(3): Similar privileges for Parliament.

vi. Article 208: Legislature’s power to make rules governing its procedure.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The majority of the Court (S.R. Das C.J., Bhagwati, Sinha, Wanchoo JJ.) held that Article 194(3) is not subordinate to Article 19(1)(a). Both provisions are constitutional and coequal[5].

The Court observed that at the commencement of the Constitution, the House of Commons had the privilege to prohibit publication of even faithful reports of its proceedings if such reports contained expunged or objectionable material. Therefore, the Bihar Legislative Assembly also enjoyed such privileges under Article 194(3)[5].

The liberty of the Press, though implicit in Article 19(1)(a), stands on no higher footing than the freedom of speech guaranteed to any citizen. There is no special privilege attached to the Press[5].

Thus, the petitioner’s act of publishing expunged portions constituted a breach of privilege, and the privilege proceedings did not violate fundamental rights[5].

ii. Justice Subba Rao (dissenting) held that Article 194(3) is subject to fundamental rights. Privileges must be exercised in harmony with Part III, and Article 19(1)(a) would prevail in cases of conflict[5].

He emphasized that at the time of the Constitution’s commencement, the House of Commons only had limited privilege to prevent mala fide or garbled reports. Faithful publication of true reports did not violate privilege in England and, thus, should not in India either[5].

b. OBITER DICTA 

i. Das C.J. observed that legislative privileges are crucial for maintaining the independence of legislatures, and judicial interference in privilege matters must be limited[5].

ii. Justice Subba Rao remarked that expansive privilege claims could render fundamental rights meaningless if unchecked. The Court should ensure that privileges do not operate as islands insulated from constitutional guarantees[5].

c. GUIDELINES 

• Legislative privileges under Article 194(3) enjoy constitutional status equivalent to fundamental rights.

• Publication of expunged portions constitutes breach of privilege.

• Courts cannot interfere in internal legislative proceedings unless fundamental rights are clearly violated.

• The press enjoys no special status distinct from ordinary citizens under Article 19(1)(a).

• Privileges under Article 194(3) include those enjoyed by the British House of Commons as of 26 January 1950.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment remains a landmark in Indian constitutional law. It clarified the scope of legislative privileges and their relationship with fundamental rights. The majority opinion fortified legislative autonomy, but Justice Subba Rao’s dissent laid the foundation for future discourse on harmonizing privileges with constitutional freedoms.

While the majority view still holds sway, courts in subsequent years have gradually emphasized that legislative privileges cannot be absolute and must align with the evolving interpretation of fundamental rights and democratic accountability.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras, [1950] SCR 594[5].

ii. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, [1950] SCR 605[5].

iii. Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Union of India, [1959] SCR 12[5].

iv. Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636[5].

v. Ramjilal v. Income Tax Officer, Mohindergarh, [1951] SCR 127[5].

vi. Laxmanappa Hanmantappa v. Union of India, [1955] SCR 769[5].

vii. Wason v. Walter, (1868) L.R. 4 Q.B. 73[5].

viii. Arnold v. King Emperor, (1914) L.R. 41 I.A. 149[5].

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. The Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(a), 21, 32, 105(3), 194(3), 208.