COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

FIFTY-SIXTH REPORT

(Presented on the August 9, 2010)

RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI 2010

1

C O N T E N T S

PAGES 1. Personnel of the Committee (i) - (ii)

2. Report of the Committee 1-5

∗ 6-15 3. Minutes of the Meetings of the Committee

∗ 4. Annexures

I. Letter from Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha to Hon’ble Chairman, 16-17 . II (a) Notice of question of Privilege from Shri Devendra Prasad 18-25 , Member, Lok Sabha, also signed by 17 other Members of Lok Sabha. II (b) Notice of question of Privilege from Shri Ram Kripal Yadav, 26 Member, Lok Sabha. III Comments of Shri Sanjay Raut, Member, Rajya Sabha on the 27-30 notice of question of Privilege against him. IV Letter of of Shri Sanjay Raut, Member, Rajya Sabha to the Chairman, Committee of Privileges, Rajya sabha. 31

∗ not included in this part of the Report

2

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

(w.e.f. 24.9.2009)

(2006 – 2007)

1. Shri K. Rahman Khan - Chairman

MEMBERS

∗ 2. Shri Shivraj Vishwanath Patil # 3. Shri R.K. Dhawan 4. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi 5. Shri S.S. Ahluwalia 6. Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad 7. Shri Balbir Punj 8. Shri Sitaram Yechury £9. Shri Brij Bhushan Tiwari 10. Shri Jai Prakash

SECRETARIAT

1. Dr. V.K. Agnihotri, Secretary-General 2. Shri N.C. Joshi, Secretary 3. Shri Mukul Pande, Director 4. Shri S.K. Tripathi, Joint Director 5. Dr. Saket Kumar, Assistant Director

∗ resigned from membership of Rajya Sabha w.e.f 21.1.2010 # term of membership of Rajya Sabha expired on 7.7.2010 £ term of membership of Rajya Sabha expired on 4.7.2010 3

4

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (w.e.f. 28.05.2008)

(2006 – 2007)

1. Shri K. Rahman Khan - Chairman

MEMBERS

2. Shri R.K. Dhawan 3. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi 4. Shri Shantaram Laxman Naik # 5. Shri Arun Jaitley 6. Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad 7. Shri S.S. Ahluwalia 8. Shri Kamal Akhtar 9. Shri Sitaram Yechury ∗ 10. Shri Debabrata Biswas £11. Shri Tiruchi Siva ♠12. Shri Balbir Punj.

SECRETARIAT

1. Dr. V.K. Agnihotri, Secretary-General 2. Shri N.C. Joshi, Secretary 3. Shri Mukul Pande, Director 4. Shri S.K. Tripathi, Joint Director 5. Dr. Saket Kumar, Assistant Director

# resigned on 24.7.2009 on becoming Leader of Opposition ∗ resigned from membership of Rajya Sabha w.e.f . 23.9.2008 £ nominated on 18.2.2009 ♠ nominated on 30.7.2009 5

6

RAJYA SABHA

FIFTY – SIXTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

I, the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, present this Fifty-sixth Report of the Committee to the House. The Report deals with the case of allegedly lowering the dignity of the Lok Sabha and committing a breach of its privilege by publishing an article/editorial by Shri Sanjay Raut, Member of Rajya Sabha and Executive Editor of ‘' casting reflections on Members of Lok Sabha in ‘Saamana'.

2. The then Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, in a letter dated 7 July, 2008 (Annexure-I) addressed to Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha informed that on 5 March, 2008 he had received a Notice of question of Privilege from Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav, Member, Lok Sabha, also signed by 17 other Members {Annexure-II(a)} under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha against Shri Balasaheb Thackeray, leader of the Party, for allegedly lowering the dignity of Lok Sabha and committing a breach of its privilege by criticizing in his Newspaper 'Saamana', a Marathi daily, the Members who discussed in Parliament the issue of violence against North Indians in . Hon’ble Speaker also informed that Shri Ram Kripal Yadav, MP, Lok Sabha too had given a separate notice {Annexure-II(b)} on 11 March, 2008 on the same subject. Hon’ble Speaker mentioned that on a careful perusal of the ‘Saamana’ dated 5 March, 2008, it was found that the impugned comments criticizing the Members were made in an article/editorial written by Shri Sanjay Raut, Executive Editor, ‘Saamana’, and a Member of Rajya Sabha. 3. According to the procedure laid down in the Report of the Joint sitting of Committees of Privileges of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, when a question of breach of privilege or contempt of the House is raised in either House in which a Member of the other House is involved, the Presiding Office of the House in which the question of privilege is raised, refers the case to the Presiding Officer of the other House, only if he is satisfied, prima facie , on hearing the Member who raises the question or on perusing any document where the complaint is based on document that a breach of privilege has been committed. Upon the case being so referred, it is the duty of the Presiding Officer of the other House to deal with the matter in the same way as if it were a case of breach of privilege of that House or of a Member thereof. In view of this established procedure, Hon’ble Speaker referred this matter to Hon’ble Chairman for action, if any, as may be 7 deemed appropriate. 4. The letter of Hon’ble Speaker was forwarded to Shri Sanjay Raut for his comments in the matter. Shri Sanjay Raut submitted his comments vide his letter dated 29 July, 2008 (Annexure-III) . Shri Raut stated that by publishing the said article/editorial in the 'Saamana', he had no intention of indulging in any activity which might result in committing a breach of privilege of the Parliament or/of its Hon’ble Members. He further stated that the statement ‘Ek Bihari Sou Bimari...... ’ used in the impugned article did not, in any way, refer to any Hon’ble Member from and to the Parliament. Shri Sanjay Raut, inter alia, argued that - * he had not committed any act with the intention or with the object of committing a breach of privilege of the Hon’ble Parliament or its Members; * the subject matter of the article was not published with the intention to criticize Members of Parliament. The said article was not based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House; * the said article was not published with malice. The same was published with an intention of fair criticism and appeal to all concerned, including Members of Parliament from U.P. and Bihar that they should not make statements which would disturb the public peace or which would result in disharmony in the society or residents of ; * the article had not resulted in obstructing Hon’ble Members of Parliament from discharging their duties, it had also not caused any impediment in performing their functions. The article only cautioned them from making statements, which result in abusing resident of a particular locality, in the present case, “Mumbai”; * the article was neither a deliberate act, nor had resulted in undermining the public respect and confidence in Parliament and its institution. It had also not affected supremacy, authority or dignity of the Houses of Parliament, its Committees or its Members as Members of Parliament or their right to act as parliamentarians to legislate or discharge their duties as parliamentarians. By publishing the impugned article the right of Hon’ble Members to discuss and/or make statements in Parliament was neither challenged nor criticized.

8

Shri Sanjay Raut further submitted that the Press had a right to comment on and to fairly criticize the statements made by any Member of Parliament, especially if it resulted in spoiling the harmony in the society and, therefore, the impugned article should be considered in its proper perspective. Shri Raut requested that matter of breach of privilege against him may be dropped. 5. On a perusal of the impugned article, it was observed that the following words/sentences (translated in English) were used with reference to the Members of Parliament, particularly those hailing from Bihar and pertained to the actual transaction of the business of the House:- “* MPs from Bihar have ultimately showed their characteristic behaviour. The root of resentment about Bihar in the whole country and Hindi speaking people being held responsible for it lies in the rotten brains of these people. * Though there are so many serious issues before the Country, a discussion was caused in Parliament and Hindi speaking MPs squarely abused people from Maharashra. * Despite this clear appeal by Hindi speaking people, UP-Bihar MPs indulged in the vile act. Worms in dung will move about in dung only. The United MP, Prabhunath Singh, has many cases of crime like murder, terror, looting against him. His place is in prison. But, unfortunately, he is in Parliament. So it is better one does not speak about the deeds of Mahatma Prabhunath and Parmatma (Lord) Lalu. * Mahatma Prabhunath Singh said, “As head office of the Reserve Bank is in Mumbai, there is lot of money in Mumbai.” This is exactly what worms in dung means. As if money in the Reserve Bank is disbursed daily to people in Mumbai at various places.” Besides the above quoted statements used in the impugned article, reference to so called popular jokes sent through SMS viz., 'ek bihari sau bimari..... ' etc., reflecting on the people belonging to Bihar in bad taste were also made in the impugned article. 6. The Hon'ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha, in view of the facts of the case, referred it to the Committee of Privileges under Rule 203 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha for examination, investigation and report.

9

7. The Committee held four sittings. At its sitting held on 4 March, 2009, the Committee considered the matter and decided that Shri Sanjay Raut, Member, Rajya Sabha and Executive Editor of 'Saamana' be asked to appear before it. The Committee had fixed 22 June, 2009 and subsequently, 30 July, 2009 to hear Shri Raut. However, due to his preoccupations, Shri Raut could not appear before the Committee on these dates. The Committee heard Shri Raut at its sitting held on 3 December, 2009. At its sitting held on 26 April, 2010, the Committee considered the previous instances of matters of breach of privilege pertaining to writings in newspapers casting reflections on the House and its Members and the decisions taken by it in each case. After some discussion, the Committee decided to present a report in the matter. 8. Appearing before the Committee on 3 December, 2010, Shri Sanjay Raut, at the outset, submitted that while publishing the impugned article, he had no intention of lowering the dignity of the House or any of its Members in any manner. He further stated that what he had published in his editorial was actually published in another magazine “Outlook” two days earlier and he had only referred to that article. He stated that the impugned article was mainly in response to the statements made by some Members of Lok Sabha about Mumbai and people living there. He also stated that his newspaper belonged to a political party and, therefore, the article under reference should be appreciated in that context. 9. Shri Raut categorically denied having made any derogatory statement with respect to State of Bihar or any other State in the impugned article. On being questioned about the sweeping remarks made in the article about Members of Parliament belonging to Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, Shri Raut replied that he had only reacted to the statements made about the people of Mumbai by a particular Member of Lok Sabha. Shri Raut also submitted a regret letter (Annexure-IV) to the Committee. In the letter, Shri Raut, inter alia, submitted that the impugned article was written without any personal prejudice and was not intended to hurt the feelings of any Member of the House. However, if it had been construed to have lowered the dignity of the House and its Members, he regretted the same. 10. The plain reading of the impugned article, in the opinion of the Committee, gives an impression to the reader that the writer's attempt is to ridicule the House and its Members and to bring down the image of the Members in the public eye. The statements like, 'the MPs from UP and Bihar are leading this tirade against the Maharashtrians in the

10

Lok Sabha'; 'Bihar MPs indulged in vile act,...... '; 'rotten brains of these people...... ' 'worthless leaders...'; 'his place is in prison but, unfortunately, he is in Parliament' are, certainly, quite derogatory, unpleasant and made in bad taste. The Committee is of the view that these statements cast reflections on Members of Parliament in discharge of their duties and, therefore, tend to bring disrepute to the image of the House. 11. The Committee observes that though the Press has the liberty to express its views freely on matters of public importance, this liberty should not be abused by distorting facts, casting reflections on the Members in the discharge of their duties in the House and using intemperate languages, etc, and attributing motives to them. The Committee feels that any criticism of Members should not only be fair but it should also be couched in proper language. If any one exceeds the limits of fair comment/criticism, indulges in imputation of motives to Members of Parliament or uses abusive language against them, he or she shall be guilty of the contempt and will attract the penal jurisdiction of the House. 12. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the Committee has reached the conclusion that the observations made by Shri Sanjay Raut in the impugned editorial/article published in 'Saamana' besides being offensive and derogatory to certain Members of Lok Sabha, tended to undermine the right of freedom of speech in the House, and, therefore, constituted a breach of privilege of those Members and contempt of the House. However, taking note of the expression of regret by Shri Raut during his oral submission as well as in writing, the Committee is of the opinion that the matter need not be pursued further and recommends no action. 13. The Committee at its sitting held on the August 4, 2010, adopted this report.

New Delhi, K. Rahman Khan The 4 th August, 2010 Chairman, Committee of Privileges

11