C.II. \1) No. lal-V,.. XIII -"7 COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES THIRTEENTH REPORT (The Blitz Caae) (SECOND LOK SABHA) (Presenud on the 1 uh August, 19(1) LOK SABBA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI • ....,.lHl SrGlJGftG. 1883 (Salta) (~jIIiMMll 0eIDbtr, '965) 1Wa I IU. 1.a50 CONTBNTS PAGlIS t. Penl'nnel of the CJm.llittee of Ptivileg~ • (iii) 2. Rep or, 1-10 3. Mhute8 . I1~18 ",.Appendices .. 19-94 • 1.'&07 (.A11).LS-L PERSONNEL OF THE CO:MMI'IT.EE OF PRIVILEGES Chainn41\ Sardar Hukam Singh Member. J. Shri Hem Barua a. Shri C. D. Gautam f. Thakor Shri Fatesinhji Ghodasar 5. Shri M. R. Masani 8. Shri Harish Chandra Mathur 1. Shri Hirendra Nath Mukerjee a Shri C. D. Pande 9. Shri Shivram Rango Rane 10. Shri Asoke K. Sen 11. Shrimati Jayaben Vajubhai Shah 12. Shri Sarangadhara Sinha 13. Shri Satya Narayan Sinha • 14. Dr. P. Subbarayan 15. Shri Shraddhakar Supakar. SIlCUTARIAT Shri H. N. Trivedi-Deputy SecretGf"J/. (Ui) THIRTEENTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (Second Lok Sabha) I-INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURE I, the Chairman .of the Committee of Privileges, present this report to the House on the question of privilege raised! by Shri Khushwaqt Rai, M.P., and referred to the Committee by the House on a motion moved by Shri Nath Pai, M.P., on the 20th April, 1961. regarding the following despatch and a photograph of Shri J. B. Kripalani, M.P., with the caption "Kripaloony" underneath, published in the Blitz (a weekly newsmagazine of Bombay), dated the 15th April, 1961:- "The Kripaloony Impeachment BAD, BLACK, BALD LIES. From A. Raghavan: BLITZ's Delhi Bureau. NEW DELHI: In its content, tenor and style, Acharya' Kripalani's performance during the defence debate on Tuesday could be the envy of any American Senator who has not yet overcome his McArthian Moorings. He made it.\ea-y for the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister w deJnO.1ish an impotent impeachment of our Defence built upon bad, bald and black lies and uttered in the hysteric manner of a violent • epileptic. In the lousiest and cheapest speech ever made since he was elected to Parliament by the ~ourtesy of the Cpngress and Mr. Nehru, he demanded the head of the Defence Minister on a charger and made an impotent aJ?peal to the Congressmen opposite to turn him out of the Government as the British Tories turned out Joseph Chamberlain. By making a cocktail of plain hearsay, ancient Defence irregularities not even remotely connected with the tenure of the present Defence Minister and violence of speech, the senile Acharya overshot himself so much so that even his usua1 backers in the Congress ranks were heard saying in the lobbies that his was a self-defeating -performance. --- ..---- ... _------_.-_. -.-------.-- .... - .----- I L.S. Deb. dt. 20-4-1961, IX. 12659-70 ( S,e Appendix I, pp. I9~21). \' I After Mr. Nehru and Mr. Menon tore his indictment lnto shreds, the whole House, with the exception of a few rabid psp and Swatantra supporters, shouted him down like some bazar... buifoon." :2. The Committee held flvesittinga. 3. At the first sitting held on the 20th April, 1961, the Committee decided that, in the first instance, both Shri R. K. Karanjia, the Editor, and Shri A Raghavan, the New Delhi Correspondent of the Blitz, be asked to state, by the 26th April, 1961, what they might desire to say in the matter for the consideration of th~ Committee. The Committee further decided that they be informed that if they desired to appear before the Committee in person, they might do so on the 26th April, 1961. 4. At their second sitting held on the 26th April, 1961, the Com- mittee considered the leUers2, dated the 24th and 25th April, 1961, received from Sarvashri R. K. Karanjia and A. Raghavan, respec.. tively. The Committee decided that Shri R. It. Karanjia be granted aix weeks' extension of lime for submission of his explanation to the Committee, as requested by him in his letter. The Committee did not, however, accede to the request of Shri A Raghavan to grant him also six weeks' time for submission of his explana~ion to them. but they decided that he be again asked to appear before them on the 5th May, 1961, or in the alternative, to send his fi.nal written reply in the matter by that date. 5. According to the order of reference by the House, the Com- mittee was required to report to the House by the 30th April, 1961. After considering the matter at their first and second sittings (20th and 26th April, 1961), however, the Committee recommended to the House in their Twelfth Report3 that, in view of the circumstances explained therein, the time for the presentation of their final report to the House be extended upto the last ,day of the first week of the next session. The House agreed4 with the Twelfth Report of the Committee on the 1st May, 1961. 6. At their third sitting held on the 5th May. 1961, the Committee considered the lette:rll, dated the 5th May, 1961, from Shri A. Raghavan. 2 Atmendic ... II Pnd III, pp. 6-9 and 10 rapectively of the Twelfth Report of the Committee of Privilege•• 3 The Twelfth Report "'as prelented to the HOUle on the 28th April, 196r. 4 L.S. Deb. dt. I-S-I96I, cc. r.66I~. , Appendix n (S" pp. aB-)I). • J The Committee decided that there was no necessity of again asldna Shri Raghavan to send in any further explanation or to appear before the Committee on any fixed day, but that if some explanatioD or statement was received from him, the Committee would not shut ' that out of consideration simply because of its having been received late. 7. At the fourth sitting held on the 4th August, 19G1, the Com- mittee heard the views of Dr. ,Ram Subhagh Singh, M.P., considered , the letterG and the written statement, dated the 12th June, 1961, from 800 R. K. Karanjia, the Editor of the Blitz, and came to their oeonclusions. 8. At the fifth sitting held on the 7th August, 1961, the Committee deliberated on their draft report. ll-FINDINGS OF THE COMMITrEE 9. Both 8hri R. K. Karanj ia and Shri A; Raghavan, in their .second written statements' submitted to the Committee, raised a "'preliminary objection" that they had not been furnished with the specific grounds on the basis of which they were alleged to have committed a breach of the privileges of the House. The Committee -considered this objection carefully and decided that since they had already forwarded to both of them the relevant extracts from the Lok Sabha Debates, dated the 20th April, 1961, wherein the charge ()f aUeged breach of privilege had been made by Shri Khushwaqt Rai, M.P., there was nothing further to be conveyed to them in that -.connection. It is significant to note in this connection that in their first letters' dated the 24th and 25th April, 1961, respectively, seeking extension of time for sending their detailed replies, neither Shri Karanjia nor Shri Raghavan even hinted that the charge against them was not clear to them. In fact, Shri Karanjia had stated in his letter of 24th April, 1961, that Shri Khushwaqt Rai, M.P., had cited (in his speech in the House on the 20th April, 1961) a formidable list of authorities in support of the case against him (Shri Karanjia), and that the latter would rely on equally formidable and more telling Authorities 6 Appendix In (S" pp. 32-79). 7 Appendices II and III. 8 Appendicel I lAd U, pp. 6-10 of &be TwcIf'tJa Report of &be RommiUc. 0{ PdvUedpt. , 4 In b.is defence. Apart from this, the Committee twice gave op~ tunities to both Shri Karanjia and Shri Raghavan, to appear before Ule Committee and explain their positions, if they so desired. Neither of them chose to avail of those opportunities. If they had re~dly felt the need of any cl~ift«:ation., there was notbitl.g to prevent them Irom appearing before the Committee. The plea of "not bci~ informed of the precise charge" is an after-thought and an attempt to exhil>it an appearance of innocence. The fact that Shr'i Karanjia was aware of the charge against him is clear from the following pass$ges in his own written statement':--. (i) "The motion which was referred to your Committee and the efforts of your Committee to consider the alle~ed libel on Mr. K~ipalani. M.P., are inconsistent with the privilQges of the House of Commons which alone are the privileges of the Parliament under our Constitution."-Para 39. (ii) "Mr. lalushwaqt Rai mad~ a grievance that Mr. Kripalani was libelled in the BLITZ dispatch."-Para 41. (i,ii) 'It is significot, Sir, that during the entire 'breach of privilege' deba,te on 20th Aptil 1a$t, Mr. Kripalani' did. not once raise his voice. MI:. Kripalani remained silent or absent. Some other members alleged that he was defaimed or somethillg to that effect. "-Para 64, Not only this, the Committee find that Shri Karanjia has, in fact, taken elaborate pains in paras 58 to 88 of his written statement" to explain and justify. on the plea of ''fair comment", the alleged libel- lous expressions used in the impugned despatch published in the Blitz and pointed out by Shri Khushwaqt Rai, M.P., in his speech' in the House. Further, Shri Karanjia has concluded his explanation by adding in para 88 of his written statement: "I have dealt with what- ever specific grounds I could gather from Mr.