| Headnote |
Constitution of India, 1950:Articles 101, 102, 105 and 122/Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 7 and 10A:Cash for query - Monetary consideration for raising questions in Parliament - MP Local Area Development Scheme-Improper conduct in relation to implementation thereof-Espoused by T .V. channels - Inquiry by Committee of MPs - Report tabled in House and the MPs concerned expelled from the House - Constitutional validity of - Powers, privileges and immunities - Competence of the Houses of Parliament to expel the Members from the membership of the House - Whether such power subject to judicial review - Held: The Houses of Parliament are competent to expel the Members - Such power subject to judicial review-Scope thereof - Explained. Procedure adopted by the two Houses of Parliament-Does not suffer from any illegality, irrationality, unconstitutionality, violation of principles of natural justice or perversity-Hence not violative of Articles 14, 20 or 21. Lok Sabha Speaker's announcement that the guilty will not be spared - Whether mala fide and motivated - Held, no, since the Speaker was only giving vent to his feeling on the subject - The fact that the Speaker had thereafter constituted an Inquiry Committee with Members also from the opposition would go to show that the resolve at that stage was to find the truth. Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 - Vis-a-vis - Article 105(3) - Discussed.Powers, privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament - Position in countries like USA, UK., Canada, Australia - Discussed. Words & Phrases: 'Vacancy', 'disqualification', 'expulsion', 'power', 'privilege', 'immunity' - Meaning of. The interpretation of Article 105 of Constitution of India is in issue in these matters. The question is whether in exercise of the powers, privileges and immunities as contained in Article 105, are the Houses of Parliament competent to expel their respective Members from membership of the House. If such a power exists, is it subject to judicial review and if so, the scope of such judicial review. The aforesaid questions have arisen in the background of the allegation that the Members of Parliament (MPs) indulged in unethical and corrupt practices of taking monetary consideration in relation to their functions as MPs. The Presiding officers of each House of Parliament instituted inquiries through separate Committees. On the Report of.the Inquiry Committee being laid on the table of the House, a Motion was adopted by Lok Sabha resolving to expel the 10 members from the membership of Lok Sabha, accepting the finding as contained in the Report of the Committee that the conduct of the members was unethical and unbecoming of the Members of Parliament and their continuance as MPs is untenable. On the same day i.e. 23rd December, 2005, the Lok Sabha Secretariat issued the impugned notification notifying the expulsion of those MPs with effect from same date. Similarly the Report of the Ethics Committee was adopted by Rajya Sabha concurring with the recommendation of expulsion and on the same date i.e. 23rd December, 2005, a notification notifying expulsion of the Member from membership of Rajya Sabha with immediate effect was issued. In the Writ Petitions/Transfer Cases, the expelled MPs have challenged the constitutional validity of their respective expulsions.On behalf of the petitioners, it was inter alia contended that the power of judicial review is an incident of and flows from the concept that the fundamental and higher laws are the touchstone of the limits of the powers of the various organs of State which derive power and authority under the Constitution of which the judicial wing is the interpreter; unlike in England where Parliament is sovereign, in a federal State with a written Constitution like India is, the supremacy of the Constitution is fundamental to its existence, which supremacy is protected by the authority of the independent judicial body that acts as the interpreter thereof through the power of judicial review to which even the Legislature is amenable and cannot claim immunity wherefrom; the legislative supremacy being subject to the Constitution, Parliament cannot determine for itself the nature, scope and effect of its powers which are, consequently, subject to the supervision and control of judicial organ; that unlike the Parliament of England, the status of Legislature in India has never been that of a superior court of record and that even privileges of Parliament are subject to limits which must necessarily be ascertainable and, therefore, subject to scrutiny by the Court, like any other right; the validity of any proceedings even inside a legislative chamber can be called in question before the Court when it suffers from illegality and unconstitutionality and there is no immunity available to Parliament from judicial review; the Legislature has no power to expel its member since the Parliament has not enacted any law which provides for expulsion of a member in a specified circumstance, in terms of enabling power to legislate on the subject as available in Article 105(3) of the Constitution; the expulsions are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of the provisions of Articles 83, 84 and 101 to 103, 105 and 190 to 193 of the Constitution; there is no provision either in the Constitution of India or in the Ru!es of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Houses of Parliament for expulsion of a member by adoption of a motion and thus the impugned acts were beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament; the expulsion of the petitioners from the Legislature through a motion adopted by simple majority was a dangerous precedent which would give dictatorial powers to the ruling majority in the Legislatures in future and thus be prone to further abuse; the Constitutional law governing the democracies the world over, even in other jurisdictions governed by written Constitutions, would not allow the power of exclusion of the elected members unto the legislative chamber. The following questions were formulated by the Court: 1. Does this Court, within the constitutional scheme, have the jurisdiction to decide the content and scope of powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislatures and its members? 2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, can it be found that the powers and privileges of the Legislatures in India, in particular with reference to Article 105, include the power of expulsion of their members? 3. In the event of such power of expulsion being found, does this Court have the jurisdiction to interfere in the exercise of the said power or privilege conferred on the Parliament and its members or Committees and, if so, is this jurisdiction circumscribed by certain limits? |
