Won't allow insult to Parliament: SC

Notice to advocate for calling MPs criminals

The Supreme Court on Friday said it would brook no insult to Parliament and issued a show-cause notice to an advocate for calling Parliamentarians in-house criminals.

Hearing a batch of PILs challenging the validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), a five-judge bench presided over by Justice J S Khehar pulled up advocate M L Sharma, who also described legislators as corrupt.

“We will not let anyone malign any other institution or people, least of them being Parliament and Parliamentarians. We have to show respect to them. They are our representatives. They are the representatives of the people and they have to be respected,” the bench, also comprising Justices J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh K Goel, said.

Insult to nation

The court said that an insult to Parliament was insult to the country and it would never be party to a petition in which Parliamentarians have been called corrupt and criminal.

Asking Sharma to respond within a week why he should not be debarred from appearing in PILs, the bench said it was only concerned about the Constitutional issues involved in the challenge to the new law and that it would not let anyone insult Parliamentarians.

The court held that the proceedings were not to be construed as a “political platform” by anybody and they must confine to “serious issues” relating to the validity of the new law.
The court maintained it was open to hearing all kinds of legal arguments that sought to establish how the new law was unconstitutional or how the NJAC violated the basic structure of the Constitution but it would not permit any party to attack Parliament and the lawmakers for framing this law.

Sharma sought quashing of the Parliamentary procedure adopted to pass the Constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act. His description of MPs as “in-house criminals”, who violated Parliamentary procedure and the rules in their anxiety to pass the new law, irked the court.

“You cannot malign our politicians and call them corrupt. You cannot say that corrupt politicians have framed this law. This is a very serious allegation and we cannot allow you to do so,” the bench told him, while dismissing the petition. Sharma's plea to amend his petition was turned down by the court.

During the hearing, the bench also sought to know from the government in what manner the two “eminent persons”, who will be part of the NJAC, will be made “accountable” to the appointments. The NJAC Act has stated that the members will be “accountable” to the appointments of judges.

The court asked the government to clarify what exactly was meant by accountability for “eminent persons”. It also sought to know how “eminent persons” would be equipped to know the criteria for appointment of judges when they have to evaluate the candidates on the basis of their performance. The court put the matter for further consideration on Tuesday.