Curtailing the legislature: 

Curtailing the legislature: 

Context:

•    The Delhi High Court has entertained the PWD Secretary PIL which has stayed the investigation by privileges committee of the Delhi State Legislature on misrepresentation of facts to the privilege committee by PWD Secretary.

Background:

• Justice P.N. Bhagwati handled the first Public Interest Litigation case in the Supreme Court in 1979.
• The higher courts began to extend their powers of judicial review to oversee the executive actions of the central and state governments.

Issue of Conflict between Delhi Legislative Committee and Delhi High Court Powers:

• The  petition committee of Delhi State Assembly asked for a full report from PWD Secretary on the status of desilting of drains.
• The status report was examined by the privilege committee of legislature and found that  the not a single drain has been repaired as mentioned in the status report. It reported a case of misrepresentation of the fact to the committee.
• PWD Secretary was summoned for explanation. The Secretary asked for some time but moved to High Court of Delhi for stay which was granted by High Court on the grounds that there was a PIL on the subject, filed 12 years ago in 2005, already before the court.
• This constituted an “overlap of jurisdiction” in which, since the matter had been raised in the high court first, under Rule 201 of NCT of Delhi Rules it was the high court that had to deal with the matter.
• Less than a week later, the Delhi High Court, summoned court officials and issued a similar stay order in favour of the chief secretary of Delhi, M.M. Kutty to withhold all payments for advertisements placed by the Delhi administration to recover Rs 97 crore paid for these advertisements from the Aam Aadmi Party.
• The decisions of the High Court have created a piquant situation on two counts. First, the high court has made its own inability to dispose of a simple PIL for 12 years an obstacle to prevent another branch of democracy, the legislature, from performing its duty to the people who elected it.
• Second, and more important, the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction does not cover only the state legislature but also Parliament, for its powers on matters concerning clashes of jurisdiction with the Lok Sabha are spelt out in exactly the same words.
• Thus, High Court’s decision has created a situation in which the fact that a matter is sub judice can bar the Lok Sabha from taking cognisance of a misrepresentation of facts by the bureaucracy or any other person or institution whom it summons for an accounting.

Can State Legislature can investigate when matter are subjudice:

• Parliamentary practice had found a way around it by giving the speaker the right to waive conflicts of jurisdiction so that a case could be heard by it and the judiciary at the same time.
• This happened during the Bofors case, and again in the 2G case. The same waiver rights apply to the Delhi assembly speaker as well.
• This is a lacuna that Parliament should move speedily to fill. The fact that previous Lok Sabhas and Vidhan Sabhas have not had a shining record in enforcing accountability on the executive does not mean that they should be denied the opportunity to do so in the future.