Scribd
Upload
25 views2 pages

Article 194 and 105 Cases

Uploaded by

koroke
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
25 views2 pages

Article 194 and 105 Cases

Uploaded by

koroke
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ARTICLE 194 AND 105 CASES:

1. S Malleswara Rao Vs. CPIO, Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi
Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine CIC 300

Information Sought
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before
the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, seeking
information on five points pertaining to impeachment motion against Hon’ble Justice C.V.
Nagarjuna Reddy, High Court of Hyderabad in Dec. 2016, including, inter-alia, (i) total
number of members of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha) who had signed and moved the
impeachment motion along with their names and copies of the duly signed representations,
State-wise, and (ii) total number of members of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha) who withdrew
support to the motion later along with their names and copies of the duly signed
representations, State-wise.

Decision
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records,
notes that in order to enable the Parliament or the State Legislature or their individual
members to perform their functions effectively and without any impediments or interference
from any quarter, certain privileges are conferred upon them under Article 105 of the
Constitution which relates to the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament and its
members (and Article 194 of the Constitution which relates to the powers, privileges and
immunities of State Legislatures and their members). According to Sir Thomas Erskine May,
“Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively
is a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament …….. and by Members of each House of
Parliament individually, without which they cannot discharge their functions.” The
Commission notes that giving a notice of Motion by any Member in the course of discharge
of his Parliamentary duties is covered within the meaning and scope of the term ‘Proceedings
in Parliament’. Hence, disclosure of details of members who gave the Motion and some who
subsequently withdrew their names under RTI may open the parliamentary conduct of such
Members to public scrutiny. Such disclosure may not only indirectly influence the members
in discharge of their parliamentary duties but has a tendency to influence their independence
in the future performance of their duties, thereby would cause breach of privilege. Therefore,
the information sought for vide point nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application is exempted from
disclosure under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. Hence, an appropriate response has been
furnished to the appellant in respect of point nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application. The
Commission, however, directs the respondent to provide the relevant extract of the
Rules/procedure relating to acceptance and withdrawal of motion by MPs as sought vide point
no. 5 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy