SC: No immunity for MP Assembly Secretariat in Lokayukta probe

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that except for the state assembly speaker and his deputy, the staff of the Assembly Secretariat enjoyed no immunity from the Lokayukta’s investigations into allegations of wrongdoing. [caption id=“attachment_1406189” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  File photo of the Supreme Court. Reuters[/caption] The bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, quashed two letters issued by the Madhya Pradesh assembly secretariat to the Lokayukta for breach of privilege. In its judgement, the apex court said, “It is clear that the basic concept is that the privileges are those rights without which the house cannot perform its legislative functions. They do not exempt the members from their obligations under any statute which continue to apply to them like any other law applicable to ordinary citizens.” The Assembly Secretariat had issued two letters for breach of privilege, in response to the summons issued by state Lokayukta Justice Ripusudan Dayal to the assembly secretariat secretary. In addition the summons, Justice Dayal had sought several documents in connection with a probe of road construction contracts worth Rs. 2 crore, allegedly awarded without inviting tenders, in 2005. Referring to the case specifically, the court said that the action being investigated by Justice Dayal had nothing to do with the proceedings of the house and therefore does not tantamount to breach of privilege of the House or its members. “Thus, enquiry or investigation into an allegation of corruption against some officers of the legislative assembly cannot be said to interfere with the legislative functions of the assembly. No one enjoys any privilege against criminal prosecution,” the court ruled. Further, the judgement said that the Lokayukta had not made any inquiry against any member of the legislative assembly or the speaker or about their conduct. “The action taken by the petitioners (Lokayaukta and his officers) is within the powers conferred under the above statutes and, therefore, the action taken by the petitioners is legal.” IANS