Inconsistent With Basic Structure of Constitution: Maharashtra House Won’t Reply to SC on ‘Breach of Privilege’ in Arnab’s Case

The proposals were passed unanimously in the Legislative Council as well in the State Assembly.

Written by: India.com News Desk Edited by: Shubhangi Gupta

Updated: December 16, 2020, 9:01 AM IST

Share

Share Article

• Facebook
• WhatsApp
• X
• Email
• Telegram
• Linkedin

https://www.india.com/maharashtra/inconsistent-with-basic-structure-of-constitution-maharashtra-house-wont-reply-to-supreme-court-on-breach-of-privilege-in-arnab-goswamis-case-4269477/ Copy

Arnab Goswami

New Delhi: In what can be seen as an attempt to question judicial powers, both Houses of the Maharashtra State Legislature have passed proposals that state they will not reply to any notice sent by the High Court or the Supreme Court regarding Breach of Privilege motion against Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami.

According to The Indian Express report, the proposals– passed during 2-day winter session–mentioned that taking cognizance of such notices could mean “accepting that the judiciary can keep a check on the legislature” which would in turn be “inconsistent with the Basic Structure of the Constitution”.

The proposals were passed unanimously in the Legislative Council as well in the State Assembly.

“The Constitution has set clear cut boundaries for the three organs of the government — the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. Each organ should honour these boundaries. No one should encroach on each other’s territories,” IE quoted state assembly Speaker Nana Patole as saying.

The top court had on November 6 issued a show cause notice to Vilas Athawale, Assistant Secretary of Maharashtra Vidhan Mandal Sachivalaya, asking him to explain as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for his letter to the journalist seeming to “intimidate” him for approaching the apex court on the issue of alleged breach of privilege motion.

Later, a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde observed that it might be “necessary in all probability to serve the Speaker” to know his version, but later adjourned the hearing on Goswami’s plea by two weeks saying that it has not gone through the reply of the assistant secretary of the assembly.

Yesterday, Goswami had urged the Supreme Court to issue notice to the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker to clarify his stand on the claim of a House official who said he sent a letter to the scribe in a matter of alleged breach of privilege motion at the Speaker’s direction.