Patna: RJD Member of Parliament Sudhakar Singh on Monday sought intervention from Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla after receiving a defamation notice that he says was served on behalf of Bihar's Director General of Police, Kundan Krishnan. Singh has urged the Speaker to determine whether the notice is an attempt to hinder his performance as a parliamentarian and to take further action if necessary.
Parliamentary intervention sought
The Buxar MP posted a screenshot of his letter to the Speaker on Facebook following an earlier open letter to Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary, in which he questioned whether the state government had authorised the legal action. According to the communication, the notice was dispatched by a private law firm acting on Krishnan's behalf and demanded an apology for remarks allegedly made by Singh at a press conference in June and in an interview with a news portal last month.
"I trust that as the custodian of the Parliament's dignity and its members' freedom, you would appreciate the seriousness of this matter and take appropriate action," Singh wrote to the Speaker.
Contents and consequences of the notice
The legal notice reportedly warned that if Singh failed to apologise within the stipulated timeframe, a defamation suit seeking ₹5 crore in damages would be instituted. In his letter, the MP asked the Lok Sabha secretariat to inquire whether the notice constituted an obstacle to his duties as a Member of Parliament and to refer the issue to the Privileges Committee if that were found to be the case.
Singh also raised concerns about the apparent role of the private law firm that issued the notice. He argued that from the tone and language of the communication, the firm seemed to be acting as counsel for the state. Singh asked the Speaker to request an explanation from the Bihar government on the legal basis for such representation, noting that under the Constitution, only designated law officers such as the Advocate General or government-appointed counsel ordinarily represent the state.
Timeline of key events
| Event | Details |
|---|---|
| Press conference (June) | Remarks by MP alleged to have prompted the notice |
| Interview (last month) | Additional remarks cited in the legal notice |
| Defamation notice served | Issued by a private law firm on behalf of DGP Kundan Krishnan; demand for apology and civil damages of ₹5 crore |
| Letter to Chief Minister | MP asked whether state government authorised the notice |
| Appeal to Lok Sabha Speaker | Request for investigation and possible referral to Privileges Committee |
Procedural and constitutional questions
The MP's appeal highlights two distinct issues: first, whether a defamation notice served on an elected representative interferes with parliamentary performance and should therefore engage privileges or immunities afforded to members; second, whether a private law firm may act as the state's de facto counsel in a matter involving a serving senior police officer without clear authorisation from state law officers.
Singh asked the Lok Sabha secretariat to seek clarification from the Bihar government about the private counsel's role. He suggested that if the notice was found to impede his parliamentary duties, it should be examined by the Privileges Committee for appropriate action.
Political context
The episode comes amid heightened sensitivity over criticism of policing and administration in Bihar. While the notice names the state's top police officer as the aggrieved party, the MP framed the legal step as potentially chilling for elected representatives, particularly when questions are raised publicly about official conduct.
- Actor involved: RJD MP Sudhakar Singh (Buxar)
- Respondent named: DGP Kundan Krishnan
- Relief sought in notice: Apology or a civil claim of ₹5 crore
What happens next
The immediate course will depend on the Lok Sabha Speaker's response to Singh's appeal. The Speaker may direct the secretariat to seek a formal explanation from the Bihar government about the authority under which the private firm acted and whether the legal notice could reasonably be viewed as impeding a Member of Parliament's duty. If the Secretariat finds prima facie grounds that Singh's parliamentary functions were obstructed, the matter could be referred to the Privileges Committee for further examination.
At present, there has been no public statement from the Bihar government or from DGP Kundan Krishnan responding to Singh's allegations or confirming the source of the legal authorisation. The development will be closely watched by political parties and legal observers for its implications on the scope of permissible legal recourse against public representatives.
