The Supreme Court on April 15 agreed to hear arguments on whether BJP MP Sukanta Majumdar defied a specific written order by the West Bengal Police denying him permission to visit violence-hit Sandeshkhali or if his right to free speech as a lawmaker was gagged by the State.
Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi said his trip to Sandeshkhali was by no stretch of imagination a part of his “essential legislative functions”.
He said the man defied a written order denying him permission by the police, which was in charge of law and order.
In response, senior advocate Maninder Singh, for Mr. Majumdar, said his client’s right to free speech was not limited to his constituency alone.
“His right to free speech was not limited to inside the House alone. It can be exercised outside and even outside his constituency,” Mr. Singh submitted.
He urged the court to examine Article 105(3) of the Constitution. The Article dealt with the freedom of speech and expression and privileges afforded to parliamentarians.
The court on February 19 stayed further proceedings before a Lok Sabha Privileges Committee, which had summoned the West Bengal Chief Secretary, the Director General of Police and other officers on a complaint by Mr. Majumdar.
The MP had alleged “misconduct, brutality and life-threatening injuries to him”.
Mr. Majumdar was reportedly injured as party workers clashed with police personnel when stopped from entering Sandeshkhali, where women have been agitating over alleged atrocities committed against them by Trinamool Congress leader Shajahan Sheikh and his aides.
In February, the State had submitted that the BJP MP was engaged in “political activity” not associated with his work as a parliamentarian. He had violated a prohibition order against ‘unlawful assembly’ under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He had climbed onto the bonnet of a police car and was pushed by fellow party workers. It was the police which had taken him to the hospital. Mr. Sibal said the State had video evidence to back its submissions.
“Privilege is only applicable when an MP is obstructed or harmed in the course of his work or official duties as a Member of Parliament. Privilege is not available when the MP is not doing anything concerned with his duties. It certainly does not extend to the political activity of the MP outside the House,” senior advocate Kapil Sibal had said for the State in February.
Mr. Singhvi said if the “cloak of privilege extended to protect everything, then an MP cannot even be arrested for a crime”.
“Political activity can never be brought within the precincts of ‘breach of privilege’ powers of Parliament. How can that be? This is a clear misuse of the power of privilege,” Mr. Sibal reiterated.
The lawyers noted that the summons had extended to even the North 24 Parganas District Magistrate Sharad Kumar Dwivedi, Basirhat Superintendent Hossain Mehdi Rehman and Additional Superintendent Partha Ghosh.
The court scheduled the case for hearing after two weeks and asked the Lok Sabha Secretariat to file its response by then.
