SC refers parliamentary panel report issue to Constitution

The Supreme Court today referred to a Constitution bench the issue whether a parliamentary committee report could be referred to or relied upon during judicial proceedings before it.
A bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and R F Nariman observed that the apex court "might be crossing the boundary of federal structure" if it acts on the basis of a parliamentary committee report in a public interest litigation (PIL).
"Regarding the important and substantial issue relating to the interpretation of this constitutional issue, we think it appropriate to refer it to a Constitution bench for its consideration," the bench said while framing the issues to be considered by the larger bench.

The issue cropped up during the hearing on a petition on cervical cancer vaccines when senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioner, said the apex court can look into a parliamentary committee report for adjudication of a matter.
The 81st report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare deals with issue of drugs relating to Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine.
"If it (report) can be looked at for the purpose of reference, can there be restrictions regarding the area and arena in question," the court said while framing another issue for deliberation by the larger bench of five judges.

The bench observed that it could ask the government about the steps being taken by it on the parliamentary committee report but whether the apex court can place reliance on it would have to be decided by a Constitution bench.

"How far can we look into the parliamentary committee report? Can this court, in our constitutional framework, get into the debate of Parliament? Whatever is said by a parliamentaty committee, there is a great doubt whether it is to be considered by this court," the court said.
When Gonsalves said that "today, Parliament has expanded its role", the bench shot back saying, "But certain constitutional parameters have to be respected.

"You want the court to rely on a parliamentary committee report and pass an order in a PIL. Here is a constitutional demarcation. Can a court look at and rely on a parliamentary committee report," the bench observed.
The apex court also observed that Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who was asked by the court to assist in the matter, had filed his submissions in which he had said a parliamentary committee report can be looked into by the court only for interpretation.
"But can we issue a writ of mandamus by utilising or using a parliamentary committee report," the bench asked Gonsalves who said that it can be looked into as the government cannot shy away from its stand taken before the committee.

When the senior counsel referred to foreign laws on the issue, the bench observed, "We cannot, should not and ought not follow the English law. Our Constitution has a stand alone position.
"Role of Parliament in the modern democratic has gone beyond the traditional concept and therefore the perception is to have a transparent society and when there is access to the report, there is no logical reason not to utilise the same in a court proceeding," the counsel said.
The counsel representing the Centre, however, opposed the arguments.
The apex court had earlier asked the Centre to place before it the files of the Drugs Controller General relating to issues like the procedure of taking consent of persons on whom clinical trials of cervical cancer vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, were carried out.

The two drugs in question are manufactured by Merck Sharpe and GlaxoSmithKline respectively.
The bench was hearing a PIL seeking to quash licencing of two vaccines for cervical cancer treatment as the approval for their use was done without adequate research on safety.