# TEJ KIRAN .JAIN AND OTHERS v. N. SANHV A REDDY AND OTHE!tS

- **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 612
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-05-08
- **Case number:** Special reference No. 1 of 1964
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah1 C.J, J. C. Shah, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover, A. N. Ray, 1. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tej-kiran-jain-and-others-v-n-sanhv-a-reddy-and-othe-ts-5102
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 105 (2)-speec/res made in Parliament
by member-Extent of immunity from any ·action in courts-S11preme
Court 7ppeal-No(ice 9! lodgment-Effect of.
The appellants filed a suit for demages in respect of defamatory statements alleged to !)ave been made by the respondents, who were members
of Parliament, on the floor of the Lok Sabha during a calling attention
motion. The High Court dismissed the suit holding that no proceedings
could be taken in a court of law in respect of what was said on the
floor of Parliament in vieW of Art. 105(2) of the Constitution. However,
it certified the case as lit for appeal to this Court under Art. 133 ( 1) (a)
of the Constitution.
It was contended on behalf of the appellants by reference to the
observations of' this Court in Special reference No. 1 of 1964 dealing
with the provisions of Art. 212, that the immunity under 'that Article
was against an alleged in'egularity o{ procedure but not against an
illlegality, and contended that the same principle should be applied in the
present case to determine whether what was said was outside the discusion on a calling attention motion; that the immunity granted by Art
105(2.) was to what was relevant to the business of Parliament and not
to somethin~ which was irrelevant.
HELD : The Article confers immunity inter alia in respect of "anything said . , ..... , . . in Parliament". The word "anything'' is of the
widest import and js equivalent to 'everything'. The only .limitation arises
from the words 'in Parliament' which means during the siting of Parliament and in the course of the business of Parliament.
Once it
was
proved that Parliament was sitting and its business was being transacted,
anything said during the course of that· business was immune from proceedings in any court. [615 E]
- Obiter : Under. the Rules of this Court an appeal has to be lodged
after the certificate is p;ranted and a notice of lod.gment of the appeal is
taken out by the appellants to inform the respondents so that they may
take action con$idered appropriate or necessary.
After service of notice
this O:>urt treates the appeal as properly lodged and can proceed to hear
it when time can: be found for hearing.
The notice which is issued is
not a sumt1ons to appear before the Court; it is only an intimation of the
fact of the lodgment of the appeal.
It is for the party inforii:ied to
choose whether to appear or not. Sqmmonses issue to defendants, to
witnesses and to persons against whom complaints are filed in a criminal
court. If a summons issues to ·a defendant and he does not appear the
court may take the action to be undefended and proceeding ex parte
may even regard the claim of the plaintiff to be admitted.
This contequence does not flow from the notice of the lodgment of the appeal.
A
B
c
I)
E
F
G
H
T, K. JAIN v. N. S. REDDY (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
' 613
A
in this Court. The Court has to proceed with the app~al albeit ex parte
against the absent respondent. If a summons is issued to a witness or to
a person complained against under the law relating to crimes, and the
witness or the person summoned remains absent after eervice a warrant
for his arrest may issue. [616 A]

## Text

612
TEJ KIRAN .JAIN AND OTHERS
V.
N. SANHV A REDDY AND OTHE!tS
May 8, 1970
[M. HIDAYATULLAH1 C.J., J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER,
A. N. RAY AND 1. D. DUA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, Article 105 (2)-speec/res made in Parliament
by member-Extent of immunity from any ·action in courts-S11preme
Court 7ppeal-No(ice 9! lodgment-Effect of.
The appellants filed a suit for demages in respect of defamatory statements alleged to !)ave been made by the respondents, who were members
of Parliament, on the floor of the Lok Sabha during a calling attention
motion. The High Court dismissed the suit holding that no proceedings
could be taken in a court of law in respect of what was said on the
floor of Parliament in vieW of Art. 105(2) of the Constitution. However,
it certified the case as lit for appeal to this Court under Art. 133 ( 1) (a)
of the Constitution.
It was contended on behalf of the appellants by reference to the
observations of' this Court in Special reference No. 1 of 1964 dealing
with the provisions of Art. 212, that the immunity under 'that Article
was against an alleged in'egularity o{ procedure but not against an
illlegality, and contended that the same principle should be applied in the
present case to determine whether what was said was outside the discusion on a calling attention motion; that the immunity granted by Art
105(2.) was to what was relevant to the business of Parliament and not
to somethin~ which was irrelevant.
HELD : The Article confers immunity inter alia in respect of "anything said . , ..... , . . in Parliament". The word "anything'' is of the
widest import and js equivalent to 'everything'. The only .limitation arises
from the words 'in Parliament' which means during the siting of Parliament and in the course of the business of Parliament.
Once it
was
proved that Parliament was sitting and its business was being transacted,
anything said during the course of that· business was immune from proceedings in any court. [615 E]
- Obiter : Under. the Rules of this Court an appeal has to be lodged
after the certificate is p;ranted and a notice of lod.gment of the appeal is
taken out by the appellants to inform the respondents so that they may
take action con$idered appropriate or necessary.
After service of notice
this O:>urt treates the appeal as properly lodged and can proceed to hear
it when time can: be found for hearing.
The notice which is issued is
not a sumt1ons to appear before the Court; it is only an intimation of the
fact of the lodgment of the appeal.
It is for the party inforii:ied to
choose whether to appear or not. Sqmmonses issue to defendants, to
witnesses and to persons against whom complaints are filed in a criminal
court. If a summons issues to ·a defendant and he does not appear the
court may take the action to be undefended and proceeding ex parte
may even regard the claim of the plaintiff to be admitted.
This contequence does not flow from the notice of the lodgment of the appeal.
A
B
c
I)
E
F
G
H
T, K. JAIN v. N. S. REDDY (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
' 613
A
in this Court. The Court has to proceed with the app~al albeit ex parte
against the absent respondent. If a summons is issued to a witness or to
a person complained against under the law relating to crimes, and the
witness or the person summoned remains absent after eervice a warrant
for his arrest may issue. [616 A]
CiviL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2572 of
B
1969.
c
D
E
App~l from the judgm~t and order dated August 4, 1969
oi the Delhi High Court in Suit No. 228 of 1969.
P. N. Lekhi and K. B. Rohatgi, for the appellant.
Niren De, Attorney-General, L. M. Singhvi, R. H. Dhebar
and S. P. Ntzyar, for respondent No. 6.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayalnllah, C.J. This
is an aprxal from the
order~
August 4, 1969, of a Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi,
rejecting a plaint filed by the six appellants claiming a decree·
for Rs. 26,000 as damages for defamatory statements made by
Shri Sanjiva Reddy (former Speaker of the Lok Sabha), Shri
Y. lt. Chavan (Home Minister) and three members of Parliament on the floor of the Lok Sabha during a Calling Attention
Motion.
The High Court held that no proceedings could be
taken in a court of law in respect of what was said on the _floor
of Parliament in view of Art. 105(2) of the Constitution. The
High Court, however, certified the case as fit for appeal to this·
Court under Art. 13 3 (1 )(a) of the Constitution and this appeal
has been brought.
Notice of the lodgment of the appeal was issued to the res·
F
pondents in due course but they have not appeared. The Unio11
Government which joined, at its request, as a party in the High
Court alone appeared through the Attorney General. We have
not considered it necessary to hear the Union Government.
G
H
The facts of the case, in so far as they are relevant to our
purpose, may briefly stated.
The appellants claim to be the
admirers and followers of J agadguru Shankaracharya of Goverdan Peeth, Purl.
in March, 1969 a World
Hindu Religious
Conference was held at Patna. The Shankaracharya took part
)in it and is reported to have observed that untouchability was
in harmony with the tenets of Hinduism and that no law could
stand in its way and to have walked out wheP tlie National
Anthem was played.
On April 2, 1969 Shri Narendra Kumar Salve, M. P. (Detul)
moved a Calling Attention Motion in the Lok Sabha and gave
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 1 S.C.R,
particulars of the· happening. A discussion followed
and
the
respond,mts execrated the . Shankaracharya. According
to
the ·
appellants, the respondents
'
"gave themselves upto the use of language which wu
more common place than serious, more lax than digni-
. fied, more unparliamentary than sober and jokes and
puns were bandied around ~e playful spree, and His
Holiness 1 agadguru Shankracharya Ananta Shri Vibushit Swami Shri Niranjan Deva Teertha of Goverdhan
Peeth-' Puri, was made to appear as a leperous . (Sic)
dog."
The appellants who hold the Shanl{aracharya in high esteem felt
scandalised and brought the
action for damages placing the
the damages at Rs. 26,000. -. .. The plaint was rejected as the
High Coun held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
Article 105 of the Constitution, which defines the powers,
privileges and immunities of Parliament and its Members, provides:
/
· ''1 05 ( l) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to· the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.
(2) No Member of Parliament shall be ~iable to
any proceedings in · any court in respect of anything
said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any
committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in
respect of the publication by or under the authority
ol either House of Parliament of any report,
paper,
votes or proceedings.
(3) In other respects, tl:}e
powers, privileges and
. immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the
members and the committees of each House, shall be
such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of the
Hou!'e of Commons ot the Parliament of the United
Kingdom, ·and of its members and committees, and at
the commencement of this Constitution.
( 4) The provisions of clauses (1 ) , ( 2) and ( 3)
shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this
Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise
to take part in the proceedings of. a · House of ParB
c
D
E
G
H
/ ..
r. I<. JAIN V. N. S. REDDY (Hidayatrc/lah, C.J.)
615
]iament or any. Committee thereof as they ap 1
in
relation to members of Parliarnen~."
P Y
The Highd~ourt hel1
1
t.ha~ in view of clause (2) of the Article no procee mgs cou . Ie m. any court in respect of what was
said by the. respondents In Parliament and the plaint must, there-
. 9 fore, be rejected.
, .-
•
Mr. Lekbi in arguing this appeal drew our attention 10 aa
observat~on of this C<_>urt ~Special R~t:rence No. 1 of 1964(1),
wbere thiS Court dealing With the proviSions of Article 212 of the
Constitution pointe_d out th~t the immunity under that Article was.
aeainst an alleged 1rregulanty oi procedure but not against an illeC gality, and con!ended that the same prin_ciple should be applied
here to determme whether what was said was outside the discussion on a Calling Attention Motion. According to him the
immunity granted by the second clause of the one hundred and
fifth article was to what was relevant to the business of Parliament and not to something which was utterly irrelevant.
D · In our judgment it is not possible to read the provisions of
the article in the way suggested. The article means what it says
in language which could not be plainer.
The article confers
immunity inter alia in respect of 'anything said . •...•.. in
Parliament". The word 'anything' is of the widest import and
l is equivalent to 'everythino', The only limitation arises
from
the words 'in Parliament'
0Which means during the sitting of
Parliament and in the course of the business of Parliament. We
are concerned only with speeches in Lok Sabh~. Once it ~as
Jlroved that Parliament was sitting and its busme~$ ~as betng
~ransacted, anything said during the course o~ that bus.mes_s was
F Immune from proceedings in any court. .Thts Jn'llUnJty JS not
Only complete but is as it should be. It IS of the essence of
~arliamentary system of Government that people's representatives should be free to express themselves without fear _of. Ie~al
consequences. What they say is only subject to the ctsctphne
of the rules of Parliament the good sense of the members and
G ~e ~ontrol of proceedings' by the Speaker. The Nttrts have no
Y m the matter and should really have none.
or Mr. ~ekhi attempted to base arguments upon .the o~e~oy~
'I an lnsh case and another from Massachusseth rep
. . s
" ay's p 1.
'
1
·
f the -leal' provGtOll
of
ar Jamentary Practice.
n. VI~W 0
'--
aJooies of
llihour Constitution we are not requtred to act on an ~Ja~ thus
li coer legislative bodies.
The decision under anpea\~
11
-oe 00
or~~ct. The appeal fails and is dismissed but there s •
-~
.
fll [1965] I S.C.R. 413 nl 455.
;;
.·,
t •
~ .
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
Before we leave the case we wish to refer to the notice of
lhe lodgment of the appeal. The suit was for Rs. 26,000 and,
the certificate was granted under Art. 133 of the Constitution
by the High Court.
Under the Rules of this Court an appeal
has to be lodged after the certificate is gtanted and a notice of
lodgment of the appeal is taken out by t:L.e app;;!lants to inform
the respondents so, that they may take action ccnsidered appropriate or necessary.
After service of notice this Court treats
t~e appeal as properly lodged and can proceed to hear, it when
time can be found for hearing.
Without the notice the case
cannot be brought to a hearing.
The notice which is issu,ed is
not a summons to appear before the , Court.
It is only an intimation of the fact of the lodgment of the appeal. It is lot the party
infoqned to choose whether to appear or not. Summonses issue to
defendantst to witnesses aild to persons against whom complaints
are filed in a 'criminal court. If a summons issues to a defendant and he does not appear the court may tat.:e the action to
be undefended and proceeding:. ex parte may even
regard the
claim of the plaintiff to be admitted. This com:equence docs not
flow from the notice of the lodgment of the appeal in this Court.
The Court has to proceed with the appeal albeit ex pa{te against
The absent respondent. If a summons is issued to a wi~ess or to
a person complained · against under the law relating to crimes,
and the witness 'Or the person summon~ remains absent after
service a warrant for his arrest may issue.
We hupe ·that these
remarks will serve to explain the true position.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c
D
E