The Karnataka High Court on Thursday suggested to the counsel representing the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Chairman of its Privileges Committee, to explore a way to “resolve” the controversy following the Legislative Assembly’s resolution of imposing a one-year prison sentence and ₹10,000 fine on the editors of two tabloids for “breach of privilege”, in the “interest of the system”.
Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri made the suggestion to Additional Advocate-General A.S. Ponnanna, who represented the Speaker and the Chairman, during the hearing on the petitions filed by Ravi Belagare, Editor of Hi Bangalore and, Anil Raj, editor and publisher of Yelahanka Voice, who have questioned the legality of the Assembly’s resolution.
“Is there some way the matter can be resolved? Find out whether the issue can be given a quietus? Not only senior politicians, even statesmen can try to sort out the situation ... the court observed while asking whether the committee is willing to reconsider the decision if both editors appear before it.
When the court asked whether the Speaker has a residuary power and is there a precedence for the Speaker to keep in abeyance a resolution of the House till it has been re-examined in the House, Mr. Ponnanna said that Rule 363 of the the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly gives “residuary power” to the Speaker.
As the AAG sought time to discuss with the Speaker and the Chairman about the suggestion to “resolve” the issue, the court adjourned further hearing till Friday.
When Shankarappa, counsel for the petitioner-editors, requested the court to issue a direction not to arrest the petitioners for now, the court observed that it has confidence in the AAG and that they would not “precipitate” the matter.
Earlier, Mr. Shankarappa alleged that the authorities are intentionally not giving certified copies of the resolution and the recommendation of the Privileges Committee on imprisonment despite him personally approaching them and submitting applications. On the court’s intervention, the AAG said that certified copies would be given to the counsel for the petitioners.
Though it was claimed on behalf of Mr. Belagare that notices were not personally served on him to participate in the proceedings of the committee, the AAG contended that Mr. Belagere had failed to reply or appear before the committee despite serving of notice several times, except sending a letter through his representative once. The main contention of the petitioners is that the articles, published in their tabloids, did not amount to breach of privilege as they were outside the purview of the Assembly.
