MSM Sharma v Krishna Sinha

The Supreme Court of India in MSM Sharma v Krishna Sinha upheld the authority of a state legislative assembly to regulate the publication of its debates or proceedings over the right to free speech. M. S. M. Sharma, a journalist, published an address to the Bihar Legislative Assembly in its entirety, claiming his right to free speech protected this action despite an order from the Speaker to expunge certain portions of the address.

The Court found that Sharma’s actions did not fall under the free speech protections of Article 19 because it violated the authority reserved to the Assembly in Article 194 over the publication of its proceedings.

Facts of MSM Sharma v Krishna Sinha

Petitioner M. S. M. Sharma was a journalist and the editor of “Searchlight,” a well-known English daily newspaper with wide circulation in Bihar. Respondent Krishna Sinha was the Chief Minister of Bihar and the Chairman of the Privileges Committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly.

On May 30, 1957, Maheshwar Prasad Narayan Sinha, a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly, delivered a speech described as a severe critique of the Chief Minister’s administration. He alleged corruption and undue influence in the selection of ministers and the transfer of public servants, among other accusations. Specifically, he mentioned the case of a District Judge who was transferred rather than discharged due to the intervention of Mahesh Prasad Sinha. He also criticised the appointment of Mahesh Prasad Sinha as the Chairman of the Bihar State Khadi Board, alleging it was to enable him to stay in Patna with provided accommodation.

Following these allegations, the Speaker ordered certain remarks to be expunged from the proceedings but allowed the portion concerning the Chairmanship of the State Khadi Board to remain. Despite this order, on May 31, 1957, “Searchlight” published a report of the entire speech, including the expunged remarks. Consequently, Nawal Kishore Sinha, a member of the Legislative Assembly, raised a question of breach of privilege, leading to the matter being referred to the Privileges Committee.

On August 18, 1958, a notice was served to Sharma to show cause why action should not be taken against him for breaching the privilege of the Speaker and the Assembly by publishing the expunged portions. Sharma then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court of India, claiming the notice and proposed action violated his fundamental rights to freedom of speech and personal liberty under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution, respectively.

Decision Overview

Chief Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das delivered the majority opinion of the Court.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in MSM Sharma v Krishna Sinha were:

1. Whether Article 194(3) of the Constitution of India empowered a State Legislative Assembly to prohibit the publication of its proceedings, including parts directed to be expunged.
2. Whether such a privilege under Article 194(3) would prevail over the fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

MSM Sharma v Krishna Sinha Judgement

The Court in MSM Sharma v Krishna Sinha noted that since the Bihar Legislature had not made any specific laws regarding its powers, privileges and immunities, Article 194(3) applied, giving it the same privileges as the House of Commons of the UK Parliament as of January 26, 1950. Historically, the House of Commons had asserted the right to control or prohibit the publication of its debates and proceedings since 1641. The Court provided an extensive historical analysis of various resolutions passed by the House of Commons reaffirming its privilege to censor the publication of parliamentary debates and proceedings.

Consequently, the Court in MSM Sharma vs Krishna Sinha concluded that, as per Article 194(3), the Bihar State Legislative Assembly had the same powers, including the authority to prohibit the publication of expunged portions of its proceedings.

The Petitioner in MSM Sharma versus Krishna Sinha contended that his right to publish a true and faithful report of publicly heard proceedings, including expunged portions, was protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He argued that in case of a conflict, Article 19(1)(a) should prevail over Article 194(3).

The Court in MSM Sharma v. Krishna Sinha examined the relationship between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 194(3) of the Constitution. It held that the provisions of Article 194(3) were not subject to Article 19(1)(a). The language of Article 194 subjected only clause (1) to other provisions of the Constitution, not clauses (2) to (4). Thus, Article 194(3) was not subordinate to Article 19(1)(a).

Furthermore, the Court analysed whether Article 194(3) abridged the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a). It noted that, per Article 13 of the Constitution, any law made by the Parliament or State Legislative Assembly that contravenes fundamental rights would be void. However, the privileges conferred by the latter part of Article 194(3) were part of the Constitution itself and thus not void even if repugnant to fundamental rights.

In cases of conflict, the Court in MSM Sharma v Krishna Sinha emphasised adopting the principle of harmonious construction, where the general provisions of Article 19(1)(a) must yield to the special provisions of Article 194(3). Thus, the privileges of the Legislative Assembly under Article 194(3) would prevail over the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).

The Court in MSM Sharma v Krishna Sinha held that the Bihar State Legislative Assembly was within its rights to prohibit the publication of expunged portions of its proceedings and that this privilege was not subordinate to the fundamental right to free speech. The notice and proposed action by the Committee of Privileges of the Bihar Legislative Assembly were deemed proper, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Conclusion

MSM Sharma v Krishna Sinha underscores the balance between the right to free speech and the privileges of legislative bodies. It affirms the authority of legislative assemblies to control the publication of their proceedings, even when such control conflicts with individual rights to free expression. The decision highlights the importance of historical precedents and the principle of harmonious construction in resolving conflicts between constitutional provisions.