Courts can refer to parliamentary committee reports: SC

New Delhi, May 9 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday said courts can look into parliamentary committee reports and take them on record while deciding a case but added the report cannot be challenged.

A five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan in three separate but concurring judgements held that this would not amount to any breach of Parliament's privilege.

Chief Justice Misra, along with Justice Khanwilkar, said: "In a litigation filed either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution, this court can take on record the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee."

However, the report "cannot be impinged or challenged in a court of law", they said.

Chief Justice Misra said: "Judicial notice can be taken of the Parliamentary Standing Committee report under Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act and it is admissible under Section 74 of the said Act."

Concurring with the two, Justice Chandrachud, also speaking for Justice A.K. Sikri, said: "Once the report of a Parliamentary Committee has been published, reference to it in the course of judicial proceedings will not constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege."

Holding that the validity of the report cannot be called into question in the court, he said: "No Member of Parliament or person can be made liable for what is stated in the course of the proceedings before a Parliamentary Committee or for a vote tendered or given."

Asserting they don't see any "valid reason for not accepting" the submission of petitioner that "courts are not debarred" from looking into the Parliamentary materials and reports, Justice Ashok Bhushan too in a concurring judgment said there was "no requirement of any permission" from the Lok Sabha Speaker for "producing such documents as evidence in court".

He said after a committee report has been adopted by Parliament, it becomes a public document within the meaning of Evidence Act.

However, Justice Bhushan said the admissibility of a Parliamentary Committee Report in evidence "does not mean that facts stated in the report stand proved".

"When issues of facts come before a court of law for adjudication, the court is to decide the issues on the basis of the evidence and material brought before it."

The constitution bench said this while answering the question whether reliance can be placed on the report of a Parliamentary Standing Committee for adjudication of a fact and also what other purposes can it can be used for.

It came as a setback for the Central government and drug manufacturing company MSD Pharmaceuticals which contended that the court can't look at the Parliamentary Committee report for deciding an issue being adjudicated by it.

Both the Centre and the firm maintained that any reliance on the report would impinge upon parliamentary privileges and the separation of powers under the Constitution that interdicts the court from looking into such reports.

The issue is rooted in a plea by Kalpana Mehta who questioned the safety and efficacy of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines used for preventing cervical cancer. HPV vaccines are manufactured by MSD Pharmaceuticals and GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt Ltd.

The matter was referred to the constitution bench as the drug company opposed the petitioner referring to the 72nd report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in support of its contention.

The top court by its April 5, 2017 order framed two questions to be addressed by the constitution bench -- whether the top court in the hearing of a plea under Article 32 and Article 136 could "refer to and place reliance upon the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee" and whether the report could be looked at for reference.

The report, presented to the Rajya Sabha on August 30, 2013, said there was a "serious dereliction of duty by many of the institutions and individuals involved" and had observed that "ICMR representatives, instead of ensuring highest levels of ethical standards in research studies, apparently acted at the behest of the PATH in promoting the interests of manufacturers of the HPV Vaccine".