"We cannot monitor Parliament. The Speaker of the House knows how to manage the function of the House. We should know our 'lakshman rekha'. We should never cross the 'lakshman rekha'. We should not be overstepping our boundary to say Parliament be conducted in this manner and not in that manner. No, we cannot say," the bench said.
Judiciary cannot monitor the business of Parliament as doing so would be "overstepping" its boundary and crossing the 'lakshman rekha', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday while dismissing a petition seeking guidelines to ensure uninterrupted functioning of Parliament.
"We cannot monitor Parliament. The Speaker of the House knows how to manage the function of the House. We should know our 'lakshman rekha'. We should never cross the 'lakshman rekha'. We should not be overstepping our boundary to say Parliament be conducted in this manner and not in that manner. No, we cannot say," the bench said.
Further, it said, "in democracy, the parliamentarians know how to function. We are not here to teach them. They know better," the bench said while rejecting a public interest litigation (PIL) of NGO, Foundation for Restoration of National Values. The PIL said over the last six Parliament sessions, nearly 2,162 hours of business have been lost. Seeking guidelines from the apex court, it said that in the absence of a law, there is total vacuum to deal with the issue of non- functioning of Parliament as was witnessed in the recent monsoon session when large part of the proceedings were washed out due to opposition protests.
"Sustained disruptions, unruly protests" and abstentions by elected members have led to losses to the public exchequer," the PIL contended. Making it clear that it cannot intervene on such issues, the court said, "We cannot start advising Parliament and they know what they have to do. They are experienced people and people with wisdom. They know and understand their responsibility well."
Objecting to bringing up such a matter before it, the apex court asked the counsel arguing on the issue, "Have you kept your house (courts) clean". "You may not know. As Chief Justice of India, I know. How many houses (courts) you have kept clean," Chief Justice H L Dattu told the counsel, in an apparent reference to the recent incidents in Madras High Court where lawyers disrupted the court proceedings by raising slogans against the High Court Chief Justice.
When the counsel tried to pacify the CJI by saying that "the highest court of the country is clean," the bench, also comprising Justice Amitava Roy, interrupted him and explained that any indulgence by the apex court in the matter of Parliament proceedings would amount to "over-stepping." The bench suggested that a representation should be made to the Speaker about the lacunae in law so that it can be taken care of.
When advocate Ravi Prakash Mehrotra drew the attention of the court on concerns voiced by President Pranab Mukherjee on disruption and non-functioning of Parliament, the bench said, "the first citizen of the country has already advised them and they would take the advise seriously."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}