Why Gujarat is the only state where the public can’t watch proceedings in the Legislative Assembly live

“There is nothing from the government saying ‘don’t do this’, but there are some aspects,” the Speaker had told The Indian Express in an interview. “…I have already readied the [Assembly’s] YouTube [channel], and the website we have developed through NeVA, but there are some limitations…,” he had said.

Gujarat Legislative assembly in Gandhinagar under an overcast sky leading to a sprinkle on Monday. (Express Photo by Bhupendra Rana)

However, the Assembly Secretariat has been opposing the petition seeking live telecast of proceedings citing the privileges of the United Kingdom’s House of Commons and certain provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The Opposition Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) had demanded that proceedings of the Assembly be telecast live during the month-long Budget Session of the Gujarat Assembly that concluded on March 25, during which several important Bills including the adoption of a Uniform Civil Code, and an important amendment to the Disturbed Areas Act, were passed.

The Opposition Congress had made a similar demand last year.

The case before the Gujarat High Court

The PIL filed in 2020 asked the court to direct that proceedings in the Assembly be mandatorily telecast live, and that the text of all legislation, transcripts, and list of questions and answers be made available on the website of the Assembly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, as well as the obligations of the state under Articles 19(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

The petitioners, social activists Neeta Hardikar and Dr Siddharth Jitendra Pathak, argued that the Legislative Assembly is obligated to update information on its website in Gujarati and English, like other Assemblies in the country do.

Reply of the Gujarat Assembly Secretariat

REFERENCE TO TRADITION IN THE UK: In April 2021, the Gujarat Assembly Secretariat submitted two affidavits opposing the PIL citing privileges similar to the House of Commons in the UK. Deputy Secretary Reeta Mehta submitted in the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the Gujarat Assembly Secretariat that “there is no legal duty on part of the [Secretariat] to comply with the obligations (under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution)… as the fundamental rights are not absolute in nature and are subject to reasonable restrictions.”

The affidavit-in-reply submitted that the history of Article 194 of the Constitution (“Powers, privileges, etc., of the House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof”) can be traced to “the privileges that are claimed by the House of Commons of Parliament in the United Kingdom at the commencement of the Constitution of lndia…”.

With a view to curtailing judicial interference in determining privileges, this provision was amended in 1976 to provide that the privileges of the House “shall be those that are evolved by the said House from time to time…”, but the same was amended in 1978 and “restored the position with respect to privileges as they existed prior to the 1976 Amendment”, the affidavit said.

“As a result, privileges of the House will be the same as the privileges claimed by the House of Commons…at the commencement of the Constitution (of India)… The House of Commons claims to control the publication of debates and proceedings. As a result thereof, the Hon’ble Apex court on various occasions has recognized that every House has the privilege to control or prohibit the publication of its proceedings…,” it said.

REFERENCE TO RTI ACT: On the contentions of the petition regarding the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the affidavit-in-reply submitted that Section 8 of the Act, which provides for “Exemption from Disclosure of Information”, “confers a discretion on the State Legislature as regards disclosure of information that breaches its privilege…”.

The reply said that “lt is settled law that each House is the sole judge to determine whether its privilege has been infringed and the decision…cannot be questioned by courts.”

Rejoinder filed by the petitioners: ‘It’s a right’

In a rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed on July 31, 2021, the petitioners submitted that it was “not correct to submit that there is no legal duty on part (of the respondents) to comply with the obligations” prayed for in the petition.

“It is submitted that the Petitioner has prayed for the compliance of obligations under section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act only, and therefore the Respondent is under a legal obligation to comply with the legal duty,” it said.

The petitioner submitted that there is a “crucial difference” between the right to “publish”, as in the case of the press, and the right to “know”, as in the case of the petitioner and other citizens.

The affidavit stated: “The Petitioner is a citizen of India and the members of the legislative house are only her representatives who act on her behalf. The right of the petitioner in knowing the proceedings of the legislative house stems from the foundational values of representative democracy.”

The petitioner stated that the PIL “seeks compliance of statutory and constitutional duties on part of the Respondent and the same does not infringe the privilege of the House in any manner”.

Documents already in public domain, says Assembly

In an affidavit filed on September 30, 2021, then Deputy Secretary of the Gujarat Legislature Secretariat C B Pandya stated that the state Assembly had “uploaded all the public documents on the website of NeVa, a link of which has also been appended on the Home Page of its official website”, thus making them “available in the public domain”.

The affidavit also stated that “the privilege of the State Legislative Assembly is not merely to prohibit publication of proceedings by the press, but it empowers the Assembly to control the publication of the same as it deems fit”.

The affidavit reiterated that “different State Legislative Assemblies in the country have chosen different modes for publishing their proceedings”, as well as “the extent to which the same should be published”.

The affidavit submitted that all important proceedings of the day when the Assembly is in session are “telecast in form of a special program named ‘Lokshahi Na Dhabkara’ i.e., ‘Heartbeat of Democracy’ on all Regional Gujarati Channels such as DD Girnar every day at 06.30 pm, as well as on YouTube, lasting about half an hour”; the Budget Speech is telecast live on all regional Gujarati channels and on YouTube; and the text of the entire debate proceedings is available on the NeVA website.

The Secretariat also submitted that merely because the information has been disclosed on the “NeVA website instead of the official website of the State Legislative Assembly, does not in any manner discredit the same”. The affidavit denied the suggestion by the petitioners that the NeVA website was temporary and could be removed by the central government.

In all other states: Where the public can watch house proceedings

Andhra Pradesh: Sakshi TV live

Arunachal Pradesh: DD Arunprabha

Assam: NeVA

Bihar: NeVA

Chhattisgarh: DD Chhattisgarh

Delhi: NeVA

Goa: Prudent Media Goa

Haryana: NeVa

Himachal Pradesh: HP Vidhan Sabha channel (highlights)

J&K: The News Now

Jharkhand: NeVA

Karnataka: DD Chandana, YouTube

Kerala: Private TV channels

Madhya Pradesh: Private TV channels

Maharashtra: NeVA

Manipur: NeVA

Meghalaya: NeVA

Mizoram: YouTube

Nagaland: DD (highlights)

Odisha: NeVa

Punjab: NeVA

Rajasthan: NeVA

Sikkim: NeVA

Tamil Nadu: NeVA

Telangana: NeVA

Tripura: NeVA

Uttar Pradesh: NeVa

Uttarakhand: NeVA

West Bengal: Livestreamed sometimes