Officials are citing precedents to argue that publication of the Pathak report prior to its tabling in Parliament “amounts to showing discourtesy to the House” and is “improper” but “not a breach of privilege”.

The Pathak report was tabled in Parliament today even as the Opposition created a ruckus and forced several adjournment, demanding that the PM apologise for the “leak”.

Dipping into Practices & Procedures of Parliament of Kaul & Shakhder, officials said that publication of the report is “technically not a breach of privilege or contempt of court”.

While Rule 187 of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Rajya Sabha states that the chairman’s consent is required to raise the question of breach of privilege, the chapter on ‘Cases amounting to a Breach of Privilege or Contempt of House’ states “if documents intended for members are circulated to the Press and non-members first, it is not a breach of Privilege” as enumerated in Article 105. However, the RS chairman or the presiding officer can “deprecate” the government, forcing it to take note of the leak—in this case by ordering a probe and taking action against those responsible.

Incidentally, Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has already “deprecated” the government by “condemning” the release of the report’s content in the media before its tabling in Parliament.

Officials also cited P G Mavalankar’s September 5, 1955 ruling on a similar privilege motion over the publication of the Bank Award Commission Report. The first Speaker of Lok Sabha chose to put the blame on the press/newspaper for non-observance of parliamentary convention. “It was undoubtedly improper for the paper to do so,” he had ruled.

On March 3, 1956, when notices for an adjournment motion was given on the contention that Budget proposals were allegedly leaked and amounted to breach of privilege, the Speaker, citing House of Commons records, ruled that it need not be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Despite this, the UPA government, under pressure from the Opposition, would prefer the notice withdrawn rather than draw the PM into direct confrontation with his former Cabinet colleague.