Chennai, July 31 (Reporter) Setting aside the 2020 Single Judge order, the Madras High Court on Wednesday held that the breach of privilege proceedings initiated against present Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin and 17 other DMK MLAs for having displayed banned gutkha sachets in the State Legislative Assembly in July 2017 during the previous AIADMK regime could continue. Remitting the matter back to the present Assembly Speaker and the Privileges Committee, the Court also rejected the MLAs contention that the privilege proceedings have lapsed following the dissolution of the previous Assembly, when the show cause notices were issued, and that it could not be continued during the present Assembly tenure. Holding that the breach of privilege proceedings initiated against the MLAs could continue even after the dissolution of the Assembly, a Bench comprising Justices S.M.Subramaniam and C.Kumarappan said such incomplete proceedings could not be considered to have lapsed after the election of the next Assembly. The Bench made it clear that issues such as breach of privilege could not be washed away after the dissolution of each assembly and held that such issues should be deliberated for the people's best interest. The Court made these observations on the writ appeals filed in 2021 by the then Legislative Assembly Secretary and the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges against the Single Judge order quashing the show cause notices issued to Mr Stalin and 17 other DMK MLAs for having displayed gutkha sachets in the Assembly in July 2017. The powers of the Committee of Privileges and the powers of the Speaker of the House would not lapse merely on account of change of Government, the Bench noted. Since the notice issued by the Privilege Committee pertained to disciplinary proceedings of the House, the proceedings will not lapse merely for the reason that the opposition party turned to be the ruling party. The nature of proceedings require a decision to be taken on merits by following due process contemplated under the Assembly Rules,” the court said. Though it was argued that the breach of privilege proceedings lapse with the dissolution of the assembly, the court observed that if such a view was to be accepted, the purpose of granting privileges would become meaningless. “If the argument of the Learned Senior Counsel Mr.N.R.Elango is adopted, that Breach of privilege lapses with dissolution of an Assembly, the very purpose behind privileges granted to the members of the Assembly become meaningless. Utter chaos may ensue where every member will be motivated to not take the privileges seriously thereby leading to breaches and after the end of the term, on dissolution of Assembly, all such proceedings lapse and this shall go on in an endless fashion,” the court observed. While the Advocate Generally, appearing for the appellants, initially submitted that the proceedings lapsed on account of expiry of the term of Assembly, he also admitted that the disciplinary matters may not die on account of expiry of the term of Assembly. On the other hand, for the contending respondents, Senior Advocate NR Elango argued that the proceedings would lapse and that there was no scope for continuing the proceedings. The court noted that the single judge had failed to consider the argument of premature filing of the writ petition at the stage of show cause notice. The Privilege Committee was not the final authority but only a recommending authority and was empowered to file a report based on the recommendation which was subject to further deliberation by the Assembly. The court further observed that the court's interference in issues pertaining to the conduct of Members inside the assembly was unwarranted and the scope of judicial review was to be applied sparingly as per Articles 212 and 194(3) of the Constitution. The court added that the show cause notices related to the procedures followed by the Members and their conduct inside the assembly which were questions to be deliberated by the Committee. The court observed that in case of any irregularity in the order passed by the committee, the members were free to approach the court but instead approaching the court at the initial stage was premature and could not be entertained. The court thus deemed it fit to set aside the order passed by the single judge and asked the respondents to submit their explanations in response to the Show Cause notice. "The single judge ought not to have quashed the show cause notices issued to the DMK MLAs", the Judges said and remitted the matter back to the present Speaker as well as the Committee of Privileges for continuing the proceedings and taking a final decision on merits. The Bench also asked the TN Legislative Assembly Secretary, the Speaker and the Privilege committee to proceed with the show cause notice by following due process under the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly rules and take final decision as expeditiously as possible...////...