Judgments

RAJA RAM PAL VS HON’BLE SPEAKER , LOK SABHA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Raja Ram Pal Vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007)  (3) SCC 184 held that Parliament has power and privilege under Article 105 (3)  to expel a member. The Supreme Court also held that  it has power of judicial review of Parliamentary Actions in case of gross illegality and violation of constitutional provisions.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sting operation was conducted by online news site Cobrapost that was aired on private news channel on December 12, 2005. It showed ten MPs of Lok Sabha and one MP of Rajya Sabha accepting money for raising query in Parliament. Another private channel also telecasted a programme on 19th December, 2005 alleging improper conduct of another MP of Rajya Sabha in respect of Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLAD).

The Presiding Officers of the Houses constituted committees for inquiry. Committee in its report found ten members of Lok Sabha guilty and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament and recommended for expulsion. Lok Sabha adopted a motion expelling ten members from Lok Sabha.

A similar process was adopted by Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha referred the matter to Ethics Committee and on its recommendation expelled him.

Petitioner was also expelled on recommendation of Ethics Committee of Rajya Sabha for improper conduct in implementation of MPLAD Scheme.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court noted that, conscious of high status of Parliament and State Legislatures, Constitution accorded certain powers, privileges and immunities to these bodies. Clause (1) of Article 105 and Article 194  confers freedom of speech in Parliament and State Legislatures  though subject to provisions of the Constitution and subject to rules and orders regulating the procedure of Parliament or the Legislatures. Clause 2 of both the Articles grants inter alia absolute immunity to members of Legislatures from any proceedings in any Court in respect of anything said or any vote given by them in Legislatures or any Committee thereof. Clause (3) of both Articles declare that the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Legislatures and the members and Committees thereof in other respects shall be such as may from time to time be defined by the Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, by law and until so defined to be those as were enjoyed by the said Houses or members of the committees thereof immediately before coming into force of the Amendment in 1978.

The Supreme Court also noted that Article 122 restricts the jurisdiction of the Courts in relation to proceedings of the Parliament.

 (i) Whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide the content and scope of powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislatures?

The Supreme Court held that in view of clear enunciation of law by Constitutional Benches there ought not be any doubt left that whenever Parliament, or for that matter any State Legislature, claims any power of privilege in terms of the provisions contained in Article 105 (3) or Article 194 (3) as the case may be, it is the court which has the authority and the jurisdiction to examine, on grievance being brought before it , to find out if the particular power or privilege that has been claimed or asserted by the legislature is one that was contemplated by the said constitutional provisions or to put it simply, if it was such  a power or privilege as can be said to have been vested in the House of Commons of the Parliament of United Kingdom as on the date of commencement of the Constitution of India so as to become available to the Indian Legislatures.

(ii)  Whether power and privileges of Legislatures include power to expel a member?

The Supreme Court has held in UP Assembly that a broad claim that all the powers enjoyed by the House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution of India vest in an Indian Legislature cannot be accepted in its entirety because there are some powers which cannot obviously be so claimed.

The Supreme Court noted that Dr. Ambedkar reiterated that cataloguing of all the powers and privileges would have added to the volume of the Constitution and that the course of adopting the powers and privileges of the existing legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935 was inadvisable as that body had hardly any rights available. The draft Article was adopted after the abovementioned explanation and made part of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the termination of membership can be effected only in the manner laid down in Articles 101 and 102.  The Supreme Court observed that disqualification and expulsion are two different concepts altogether and recognizing the Parliament’s power to expel under Article 105(3) does by no means amount to adding a new ground for disqualification.

The Supreme Court observed that duration of house of five years cannot be interpreted to mean that it guarantees members term of five years. Expulsion is only an additional cause for shortening the term of a member. As far as salaries are concerned, salaries are dependent on membership and continuation of membership is altogether a different matter.

The Supreme Court also held that the power of expulsion does not violate the right of the constituency or any other democratic principles.

The Supreme Court also held that Article 19 (1) (g) cannot restrict the power of expulsion under Article 105(3).

The Supreme Court observed that there have been numerous instances when power of expulsion has been applied by House of Commons. It was contended by the Petitioners that House of Commons derive its power of expulsion from its privilege of regulating its composition. Since the Parliament does not have power of its constitution, power of expulsion cannot be found under Article 105.

The Supreme Court observed that Legislative organs in India is regulated by Constitution in respect of composition and regulation of membership thereof. It must be held beyond the pale of all doubts that neither Parliament nor State Legislatures in India can assert power to provide for or regulate their own constitution in the matter claimed by the House of Commons in United Kingdom.

The Supreme Court made a detail survey of several authorities and rejected the contention that the source of power of expulsion in England was the privilege of the House of Commons to regulate its own constitution or that the source of power is single and indivisible and cannot be traced to some other source like independent or inherent penal power.

The Supreme Court observed that the right to enforce its privilege either by imposition of fine or by commitment to prison or by expulsion is not a part of any other privilege but is by itself a separate and independent power or privilege.

As far as contempt powers are concerned, the Supreme Court held that the power to punish for contempt in its totality has not been struck down by decision in UP Assembly, we donot intend to rule on the validity of the broad power to punish for contempt as a whole. The different elements of this broad contempt power will have to be decided on an independent scrutiny of validity in appropriate case. Having found, however, that there is no bar on reading the power to punish for contempt in Article 105 (3), it is possible to source the power of expulsion through  the same provision.

(iii) Whether Supreme Court has powers to interfere in exercise of powers by Legislatures, their members or committees ?

As far Judicial Review of Parliamentary action is concerned, the Supreme Court observed that the manner of exercise of the power or privilege by Parliament is immune from judicial scrutiny only to the extent indicated in Article 122 (1), that is to say the Court will decline to interfere if the grievance brought before it is restricted to allegations of irregularity or procedure. But in case of gross illegality or violation of constitutional provisions is shown, the judicial review will not be inhibited in any manner by Article 122 or for that matter by Article 105.

The Supreme Court did not find merit in the case and dismissed the same.

___________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *