In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for the majority, held that debates in Constituent Assembly can be relied upon as an aid to interpretation of a constitutional provision and for the said purpose the learned Judge relied upon the decisions in Madhu Limaye, In re, (1969) 1 SCC 292 Union of India v. Harbhajan Sinhg Dhillon, (1971) 2 SCC 779 and several opinions in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and another, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
In Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1 the majority of the Constitution Bench relied on the Constituent Assembly debates while dealing with the concept of constitutional trust.
As the Constituent Assembly debates are referred to for interpretation of a constitutional provision and especially to understand the context, similarly judicial notice of parliamentary proceedings can be taken note of for the purpose of appreciating the intention of the legislature.
