This article has been written by Neelam Yadav. The article elaborates on the judgement of the Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors. (2006). This article gives a detailed understanding and an extensive analysis of this case. It deals with the facts, issues, judgement, and case laws relating to this case. It also includes all the laws relating to “parliamentary privileges and judicial review” under the Constitution of India.

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction 

Parliamentary privileges in India are the special rights, immunities and exemptions that the members of Parliament and the State Legislatures have. These privileges ensure that legislators can perform their duties without any undue interference. These are derived from the three main sources, namely, the Constitution of India, the laws made by the Parliament, and the traditional parliamentary practice, which was not codified. These parliamentary powers are extensive but are not absolute; the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to review actions taken under parliamentary privileges to ensure that they do not violate any fundamental rights of citizens or other provisions of the Constitution of India. The case of Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007), popularly known as the “Cash for Query” case, was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 2007 and primarily concerns the jurisdiction and powers of the Parliament in relation to the expulsion of its members and also discussed the principle of parliamentary privileges and judicial review.

This case is an important decision given by the Supreme Court in Indian constitutional law. It deals with whether the Lok Sabha can expel its members and whether such expulsions can be reviewed by the courts. The case also highlights parliamentary privileges and the balance between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. This case is important for understanding the limits of parliamentary autonomy and how courts can oversee legislative actions and procedures. It highlights the need to understand the historical context and constitutional framework governing the relationships between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

Details of the case

1. Name: Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors.
2. Equivalent citation: AIR 2007 SC (SUPP)1448, 2007 (3) SCC 184
3. Name of the court: Supreme Court of India
4. Bench: CJI Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice D.K. Jain, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice R. V. Raveendaram
5. Name of the appellant: Raja Ram Pal
6. Name of the respondent: Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors.
7. Date of judgement: 10 January, 2007
8. Statutes involved: Constitution of India
9. Provisions involved: Article 105, ArticleConstitution of India

Facts of the case 

On December 12, 2005, a sting operation was conducted by Cobrapost based on which a private TV  channel, Aaj Tak, aired a program showing “ten” Members of Parliament (MPs) from the House of the People (Lok Sabha) and one from the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) accepting money as a consideration to ask certain questions in the Parliament. This led to huge publicity and media coverage. The presiding officers of each house of the Parliament formed separate committees to investigate the matter.

The investigation by the Inquiry Committee found strong evidence against the ten Lok Sabha MPs and dismissed their claims that the video footage was fake or edited. The committee believed the videos were authentic and concluded that these MPs took money in connection with their parliamentary work, which was unethical and called for strict action. The majority report stated that the Parliament could punish members by imposing admonition, reprimand, withdrawal from the house, suspension from the house, imprisonment and expulsion from the house for misconduct or contempt. The report expressed deep concern over the MPs taking money for raising questions, saying it damaged the credibility of the Parliament, and recommended the expulsion of the 10 Lok Sabha MPs. On December 23, 2005, the Lok Sabha accepted the inquiry committee’s findings and majority members of the Lok Sabha voted to expel the 10 MPs, declaring their actions unethical and their membership cannot be continued further. The Lok Sabha Secretariat then issued a notification of their expulsion.

In the Rajya Sabha, almost a similar process occurred. The matter was referred to the Ethics Committee, and as per the majority, the committee found that the respective member accepted money to table questions in the Rajya Sabha and rejecting his defence came to the conclusion that he should be expelled. However, one member of the committee had a confusion due to the different opinions of various High Courts and the rules of procedure under Rule 297(d) does not list expulsion as a possible punishment. To avoid any mistake, he suggested seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution for clear guidance. The Rajya Sabha accepted the committee’s recommendation and voted to expel the member on the same day, i.e., December 23, 2005, and also issued the notification on that same day.

Another TV channel telecasted a program on December 19, 2005, accusing another Rajya Sabha MP of misconduct in relation to the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLAD Scheme). This matter was also referred to the Ethics Committee of Rajya Sabha, which found clear evidence, i.e., unedited video footage, where the member demanded a commission for helping an NGO set up projects and recommending works under the MPLAD Scheme. The committee concluded that his actions violated the Code of Conduct for Rajya Sabha members and damaged the dignity of the house, recommending his expulsion. The Rajya Sabha agreed to the recommendations of the Ethics Committee and expelled the member on March 21, 2006, by issuing a notification that day.

The expelled MPs challenged the constitutional validity of their respective expulsions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Writ Petition.

Issues raised 

The following are the questions that were addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

• Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to decide the scope of powers, privileges and immunities of the legislature and its members?
• Whether the powers and privileges of the legislature in India, especially those provided under Article 105 include the power of expulsion of their members?
• Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to interfere when the Parliament uses its power to expel members, and if so, are there any limits to exercising this jurisdiction?

Arguments of the parties

Petitioners 

Senior Advocates Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Mr. P.N. Lekhi, Advocate Dr. K.S. Chauhan and other learned counsel appeared for the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that the decision to expel them was already made before any investigation took place. They pointed out the statement by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha made on December 12, 2005, where he said “nobody would be spared.” They argued that this statement showed a biased and pre-determined attitude against them. They criticised that their expulsion was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating various articles such as Section 102, 105 etc. of the Constitution and their rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, due to which they have suffered irreparable loss of reputation in the eyes of the electorate and their constituency. 

The petitioners further argued that Indian legislature have not inherited all the powers and privileges of the House of Commons of the UK Parliament under Article 105(3) of the Indian Constitution. They contended that the expulsion powers were exercised by the UK Parliament as part of its power of self-composition and, since such power of self-composition has not been given to Indian legislatures, they also have not inherited the powers to expel the members. They also claimed that the power to expel a member is punitive and not remedial, which was based on the role of the UK Parliament as a High Court of Parliament, a status that has not been given to Indian legislatures by the Constitution. They also argued interpreting Article 105(3) that if the power to expel is included in this article, it will be in conflict with the other constitutional provisions.

They further contended that both the houses of Parliament do not have the power to expel a sitting member and claimed that the petitioners cannot be removed from their positions based on notifications or media reports because such actions must follow specific legal procedures. They also criticised the inquiry proceedings conducted by the committees formed; the petitioner alleged that those committees made it quick, were unfair, and lacked impartiality, and also that the basic principles of natural justice, such as the right to legal counsel and the opportunity to defend oneself, were violated as they were not given proper opportunities to defend themselves or to challenge the video evidence used against them as those videos could have been altered or edited. They argued that the established procedures for expulsion were not followed by the Parliament, referring to the procedure mentioned in Article 103 and the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

The petitioner asserted that the power of judicial review is very important in a federal state like India, where the Constitution is supreme and legislative actions, including expulsions, are subject to judicial review to ensure that they comply with the constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice. That without judicial review, the constitutional and legal protections for citizens would be meaningless. The petitioner also contended that, unlike the UK Parliament, the Indian legislatures are not superior courts of record and their privileges are subject to scrutiny by the courts and that any unconstitutional actions even within legislative assemblies can be reviewed by the courts. They claim that the power of expulsion of a sitting member by Indian legislatures is not supported by law or constitutional provisions.

Bases of the arguments

1. Constitutional interpretation: Interpreted Article 105(3) of the Constitution to argue that the power to expel members was not explicitly granted to Indian legislatures and, thus, they cannot exercise such powers without specific legislative enactment.
2. Judicial review: Relied on the principle that in a federal system with a written constitution, judicial review is necessary to ensure that all actions of the State including legislative actions, conform to constitutional provisions and principles.
3. Natural justice: The petitioner emphasised that the inquiry and expulsion procedures violated principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to present a defence.
4. Constitutional supremacy: The supremacy of the Constitution means that no organ of the State can act beyond its provided limits by the Constitution of India without being subject to judicial review.

Respondents  

The two Houses of Parliament, namely, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, did not participate in the proceedings directly but defended their decisions through the Union of India. The Union of India, represented by Mr. Gopal Subramanian, learned Additional Solicitor General, and Mr. T. R. Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate, argued that the expulsion was justified because the conduct of accepting money was inappropriate for members of the Parliament, which made them unfit to continue in their position as Member of Parliament (MP). The plea of the expelled members that the video footage had been tampered with or edited held no merit and the Committee had no valid cause to question its authenticity also the charges of money acceptance by the 10 members were established. The actions of their expulsion fall within the inherent powers and privileges of the Parliament, and the expulsion was a collective decision made in good faith to protect the Parliament’s reputation. They insisted there was no bad intention and the decision was made properly by both houses of the Parliament. It was emphasised that each house of the Parliament has the privilege to conduct its internal proceedings within the walls of the house without any external interference, including the right to impose disciplinary measures on its members and the court’s power does not extend to examine parliamentary actions related to matters within the house’s internal proceedings for its members. If any member is expelled, it concerns only the internal proceedings of the house and that the house itself is the final judge in such matters. The expulsion is in accordance with the powers and privileges under Article 105(3) of the Constitution of India and this power has been exercised in the past as well. Additionally, they submitted that the expulsion does not prevent the expelled members from being re-elected to the house.

Bases of the arguments

1. Constitutional provision: The respondents based their arguments on Clause 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution of India, which grants powers and privileges to the Parliament.
2. Parliamentary sovereignty: The principle that the Parliament has the sovereign right to manage its internal affairs without external interference, including from the judiciary.

Law discussed in Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors. (2007)

Article 105 of the Constitution of India

Article 105 of the Indian Constitution deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of the houses of Parliament, its members, and committees. It provides that:

• Every member of the Parliament has freedom of speech within the house which means they can speak freely during parliamentary proceedings without any fear. But, this freedom is subject to the other provisions of the Constitution and the rules and standing orders that regulate the proceedings of the Parliament.
• No member of the Parliament can be held liable in any court for anything said or any vote given by them in the Parliament or its committees. 
• No person shall be liable for the publication by or under the authority of either house of the Parliament of any report, paper, vote or proceedings.
• The Parliament has the authority to define its own powers, privileges, and immunities through legislation and until such laws are made, the privileges of the Parliament are the same as those of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom as were at the commencement of the Constitution of India.

It further provides that these provisions shall apply to the person who has the right to speak in the Parliament or to take part in the proceedings of the Parliament or its committee regarding members of the Parliament.

Article 122 of the Constitution of India

Article 122 of the Constitution of India deals with the restrictions on courts to inquire into proceedings of Parliament. It provides that-

• No one can question the activities or decisions made in the Parliament solely based on the claims that the procedures were not followed correctly. 
• Officers and members of the Parliament, who have the authority to manage the procedures, conduct business or maintain order within the Parliament are not subject to the control or judgement of any court, and the courts cannot interfere with how the members or officers exercise their powers within Parliament.

Constitutional principles

Supremacy of the Constitution

The Constitution of India is considered the supreme law of the land. This means it is more important than any other laws and government in action. The supremacy of the Constitution is ensured in several ways:

• Fundamental rights: The Constitution of India under Part III guarantees certain fundamental rights to the citizens, which cannot be taken away by any law or action of the State.
• Judicial review: The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to review laws and executive actions to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the Constitution of India, and any law or action that is found unconstitutional can be struck down by these courts.
• Amendment procedure: The process for amending the provisions of the Indian Constitution is rigorous, requiring a special majority in the Parliament and certain amendments also need to be ratified by at least half of the state legislatures. This ensures that constitutional amendments are made carefully with broad agreement and ensures the protection of the sanctity of the Constitution. 
• Basic structure doctrine: This is the doctrine that was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Anr. (1973). As per this doctrine, certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by any amendment. These include the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the principle of separation of powers and the federal structure.
• Article 13: Article 13  of the Constitution explicitly states that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights shall be void.

Parliamentary privileges

The parliamentary privileges are the special legal rights and immunities granted to Members of Parliament (MPs) so that they can perform their duties without any undue interference. These privileges are essential to ensuring that the legislative body can function independently and effectively. The constitutional provisions dealing with parliamentary privileges are Articles 105 and 122 for the Parliament and Articles 194 and 212 for state legislatures. 

The following are the key aspects of parliamentary privileges:

• Freedom of speech: The MPs have the right to speak freely and fearlessly in  Parliament without the risk of legal action such as defamation suits for anything said during parliamentary proceedings. 
• Freedom from arrest: MPs enjoy immunity from arrest in civil cases during the session of Parliament 40 days before the beginning and 40 days after the end of a session. This ensures that members can attend and participate in parliamentary activities without obstruction. However, this immunity does not extend to arrest or imprisonment on a criminal charge and to detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
• Right to regulate internal affairs: Each house of the Parliament has the authority to manage its internal affairs, including the conduct of its members and the maintenance of discipline. This includes the power to suspend members for their disorderly conduct. As per Article 122,  the decisions made by Parliament cannot be challenged, and the courts are not authorised to intervene in Parliament’s exercise of its powers.
• Exemption from attendance as witnesses: The MPs are exempted from being compelled to attend court as witnesses during parliamentary sessions to ensure their uninterrupted participation in legislative work.
• Confidentiality of the proceedings: As per Article 105(2), the Parliament can prohibit the strangers from publication of its reports and proceedings. Thus, the proceedings and reports of parliamentary committees are privileged, and members cannot be compelled to disclose any information about the proceedings of the house in any court.
• Right to exclude strangers from its proceedings and hold secret sessions: The house can conduct secret sessions to discuss highly qualified matters of national or international importance and can restrict outsiders from entering the session and the outsider cannot claim the right to watch the proceedings. 

Judicial review

Judicial review is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution of India that can never be taken away even by a constitutional amendment by the Parliament. The principle of judicial review gives power to the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the actions of the legislative and executive branches of the government to ensure that they comply with the Constitution and help maintain the supremacy of the Constitution.

Though not specifically provided under the Constitution, the power of judicial review can be derived from Articles 13, 32, 136, 226 and other provisions of the Constitution. The courts use judicial review to protect fundamental rights, determine the constitutional validity of laws, and ensure the legislative and executive branches do not overstep or misuse their powers. The landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) and L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997) have affirmed and defined the scope of judicial review in India.

Judgement in Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors. (2007)

Majority judgement

CJI Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice D.K. Jain

The Hon’ble judges summarising the principles governing judicial review of parliamentary provisions held that, while the Parliament is important and its views should be respected, its actions can still be reviewed by the courts and no individual or body, irrespective of their status or position, can be the sole judge of their own power under the Constitution. The court can review the actions that are judicial or quasi-judicial and ensure they do not violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. The legislature decides what is necessary and appropriate, but the judiciary can also check these decisions if they affect any fundamental rights of the citizens or are claimed to be illegal or unconstitutional. Legislative actions are usually assumed to be legal and reasonable, but this can be challenged, the courts cannot question the truth or adequacy of the evidence used by the legislature or replace their own judgement. However, they will review how legislative privileges are enforced and check if any actions are for improper purposes or bad faith. Clauses that prevent courts from reviewing are usually upheld, except in cases of serious illegality, constitutional violations, bad faith, or lack of natural justice. The courts ensure that legislative actions follow the Constitution and protect fundamental rights.

Referring to the petitioner’s claim, the judges examined the Speaker’s statement that “nobody would be spared” and clarified that he was not prejudging the MPs as guilty but was expressing his concern and ensured that the proper actions would be taken if the allegations were found to be true. The judges disagreed with the petitioner’s claim of bad intentions and pointed out that an Inquiry Committee was formed, which also included the members from opposition parties that showed a genuine effort to find the truth. The decisions of the Inquiry Committees were then accepted by Parliament, which indicated a collective decision rather than an individual bias.

The judges also clarified that the procedures under Article 103 and the Tenth Schedule relate to different types of disqualifications and are not relevant to the expulsion power under Article 105(3) and found no issue with the formation of special Inquiry Committees by the Speaker. The Judges found no merit in the claim that the video footage was doctored and the MPs were also given a chance to explain their side. The MPs had participated in the inquiry process so they cannot argue that evidence was taken behind their backs. They also did not find any violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice, as the expelled members were given a fair chance to explain and defend themselves. 

They stated that the court cannot question the decision of the Legislature regarding the extent of punishment. The expulsion of the Members was a matter of self-protection for the Parliament and the role of the court is limited to reviewing legality and constitutionality and not substituting its judgement. Thus, the Hon’ble judges concluded that the petition lacked merit and held it to be dismissed.

Justice C. K. Thakker

Justice C.K. Thakker agreed with the Chief Justice’s decision to dismiss the petitions.

He focused on whether Parliament has the authority to expel a member and whether this power is protected under Article 105(3) of the Constitution, which deals with parliamentary privileges. He also emphasised that, although Parliament is not a court and does not have judicial powers, it has the authority to maintain its integrity and take action against any members who engage themselves in corruption or misconduct and this authority is derived from the constitutional powers and privileges of Parliament. 

Justice C. K. Thakker also mentioned the doctrine of necessity, which implies that legislative bodies have inherent powers to take actions necessary for their existence and the orderly conduct of their duties. This includes the power to expel members whose conduct affects the integrity of the institution. He stated that the expulsion of the members was necessary to maintain public trust and to ensure that Parliament was free from corruption. He held that the parliamentary privileges include the power to expel such members whose actions destroy the integrity and public trust in the Parliament and that this power is essential for self-preservation and the proper functioning of Parliament.

Dissenting Judgement

Justice R. V. Raveendaram

Justice R. V. Raveendaram referred to Articles 101 and 102 of the Constitution of India, which deals with “vacation of seats” and “disqualifications for membership,” respectively and stated that they do not explicitly mention expulsion as a mode of cessation of membership. He held that the Constitution makers have made it very clear how a person becomes a Member of Parliament (MP), whether by election or nomination, how long they can serve, and the manner by which they cease to be a member or their seat becomes vacant. Therefore, the issues of election or nomination, tenure, and ending membership are not included under “other powers, privileges, and immunities” mentioned in Article 105(3). Article 105(3) does not cover issues related to election, term of office, qualifications, or disqualifications because those have already been covered in Articles 80, 81, 83, 84, 101 and 102. 

He stated that-

• When a Member of Parliament (MP) is accused of corruption, they should be prosecuted according to the law.
• If a member is under criminal investigation, they can be temporarily suspended to prevent participation in activities of the Parliament.
• If the member is convicted, they will be disqualified under Article 102(1)(e).
• If the member is acquitted, they can continue as a member.

Parliament does not have the inherent power to expel members under Article 105(3) and expulsion can only occur if Articles 102 or 101 are amended or if a new law is passed under Article 102(1)(e) allowing expulsion for members. 

Justice R.V. Raveendaram held that the action of expulsion of the petitioners taken by both houses of Parliament are in violation of Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution of India and, thus, the expulsion is invalid.

Rationale behind the judgement

Court’s jurisdiction to decide on the scope of Article 105(3)

The first issue addressed by the Supreme Court is whether this court has the jurisdiction to decide the scope of powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislature and its members. There was a consensus among the counsels that the court has jurisdiction, but the court decided to fully examine its jurisdiction in respect of Article 105(3). The court stated that Article 105 of the Indian Constitution grants the Parliament the power to define the powers, privileges, and immunities of each house and its members and committees by enacting the law. Since Parliament has not enacted the law, the second part of Article 105(3)continues to apply, which means that the powers, privileges, and immunities are those which were enjoyed by the House of Commons at the commencement of the Indian Constitution.

In this regard, the following cases were cited and referred by the court:

Bradlaugh vs. Gossett (1884)

In this case, Charles Bradlaugh was elected to the House of Commons and, as per law, he had the right to take an oath to become a member of the house and participate in its activities. But, the House of Commons passed a resolution preventing him from taking the oath and participating, unless he promised not to take the oath against their decision. The Courts in England held that the House of Commons has the ultimate power to control its own procedures and members and the decisions made within the Parliament, like preventing Bradlaugh from taking the oath, cannot be challenged in court.

Prebble vs. Television New Zealand Ltd. (1994)

In this case, a former Minister of the Government of New Zealand, Richard William Prebble, sued Television New Zealand Ltd. for defamation where proceedings of the Parliament were in question. The legal issue in this case is whether the proceedings in the Parliament could be questioned in court, based on Article IX of the Bill of Rights, 1689. The Supreme Court held that there is a principle that courts and the Parliament recognise their separate roles and that courts do not allow any challenges related to anything that happens in Parliament during its legislative functions. Further, no one can question what was said or done in Parliament by suggesting that it was done with improper motives or was untrue or misleading. These matters are entirely handled by the Parliament.

Pandit M.S.M. Sharma vs. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha & Ors. (1959)

In this case, Pandit Sharma, the editor of the “Searchlight” newspaper, published parts of the proceedings of the Bihar Legislative Assembly, including some parts that were ordered to be deleted by the Speaker. The Speaker referred the matter to the Privileges Committee, which issued a show cause notice to Pandit Sharma. Pandit Sharma then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a), i.e., the freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21, i.e., the right to personal liberty, were violated. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that the legislature has the power to prohibit the publication of its proceedings even if they are accurately reported. The Supreme Court concluded that the privileges of the legislative assembly under Articles 105(3) and 194(3) are as important as fundamental rights and cannot be overridden by Article 13. In case there is a conflict, then the principle called “harmonious construction” is used.

M.S.M. Sharma vs. Shree Krishna Sinha (1961)

This case is popularly known as “Pandit Sharma II case.” In this case, after the legislative assembly was prorogued and the Privileges Committee reconstituted, Pandit Sharma received another notice and filed a second writ petition under Article 32 and contended that the procedure adopted by the house of the Bihar Legislative Assembly was not regular and not strictly in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court held that the procedure followed by the legislature cannot be challenged on the grounds of being irregular or not strictly legal, as per Article 212. Article 212 of the Constitution prevents courts from questioning the validity of legislative procedures, even if the procedures were not strictly followed.

Keshav Singh vs. Speaker, Legislative Assembly and Ors. (1965)

This case is famously known as the “U.P. Assembly case.” In this case, the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly imprisoned Keshav Singh for 7 days for contempt of the Assembly and did not explain why Keshav Singh was held for contempt. Keshav Singh then challenged his imprisonment before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which granted him bail. The Assembly then tried both the High Court judges and Keshav Singh’s advocate in contempt as well and asked them all to appear before it. This led to a legal conflict about whether the Assembly’s actions were valid and whether the courts could intervene in such matters. To resolve these questions, the President of India referred the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. The main issues in this case were whether the Assembly had exclusive authority to judge and punish contempt that occurred outside its walls and whether the High Court could review the Assembly’s decisions, especially if the Assembly used vague or general warrants. 

The Supreme Court examined how similar issues were handled in the UK. In the UK, while the Parliament claims the right to decide on its privileges, the courts also recognise these privileges as part of the law. There is a balance where courts do not interfere with Parliament’s internal workings but can review laws related to privileges. In India, the Supreme Court must interpret constitutional provisions, including those about legislative privileges (Article 194(3)). This means, in India, the courts have the authority of judicial review on the matters violating any provision of the Constitution and do not follow “dualism,” which is seen in the UK, where Parliament and the courts may have conflicting views on privileges.

State of Karnataka vs. Union of India & Ors. (1977)

In this case, the central government had appointed a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the then Chief Minister of Karnataka. The State of Karnataka challenged this appointment, arguing that the Commission was investigating matters that fell exclusively under the state’s legislative and executive powers. They claimed this action violated the federal structure of the Indian Constitution, which is a fundamental principle of the Constitution. The State of Karnataka argued that ministers should be exempt from ordinary legal liabilities due to their legislative role. The court rejected this argument and pointed out that, both in England and in India, legislators and ministers are not above the law. The Constitution of India grants legislative powers to Parliament and state legislatures but does not give them the authority to act as courts of justice. They can take quasi-judicial actions related to their functions, such as handling contempt of their authority, but they cannot directly try cases as a court does. This case confirmed that legislative bodies cannot exempt their members from ordinary legal responsibilities and that ordinary courts have the authority to resolve disputes about the scope of legislative powers and privileges.

Based on the above rulings, the Supreme Court concluded that, whenever Parliament or any state legislature claims a power or privilege under Article 105(3) or Article 194(3), the court has the jurisdiction to examine this claim. The court must decide whether the claimed power or privilege is the one that was recognised in the British House of Commons at the time of the commencement of the Indian Constitution.

Power of expulsion

The second issue addressed by the Supreme Court is whether the powers and privileges of the legislature in India, especially those provided under Article 105 include the power of expulsion of their members. The court emphasised that its earlier decisions in Pandit Sharma cases upheld the power of legislative assemblies to act against contempt even if it affects fundamental rights and clarified that the U.P. Assembly case should not be used to suggest that the Indian Parliament lacks all the contempt powers enjoyed by the House of Commons, such as punishing for its contempt. The court also referred to the case of State of Karnataka vs. Union of India (1977), which discussed the limitations of legislative powers and highlighted that, while legislatures can address its contempt, their powers are not the same as those of the House of Commons and do not include broader judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It also held that the legislatures can act to remove obstructions to their functioning but cannot replace ordinary courts in dealing with criminal cases.

The court acknowledged that Indian legislature do have some contempt powers, including the power to expel members of the House of Commons, as this power existed at the time the Constitution was adopted and is consistent with constitutional provisions.

Parliamentary privilege and fundamental rights

In earlier cases like Pandit Sharma and UP Assembly, the courts focused on each constitutional article independently rather than considering them together. But this approach was changed with the landmark case of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union of India (1970) in which the Supreme Court held that all constitutional provisions should be read together to understand how they affect fundamental rights when state actions affect fundamental rights. Further, in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress (1991) and other related cases like Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors, vs. Union of India & Ors. (1980) and Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), the court emphasised that the fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) should be viewed as an integrated whole with the possibility of overlapping in the subject matter.

The court observed that the key point is that the fundamental rights, especially under Articles 14, 19, and 21, are essential for personal development and should be protected against unreasonable restrictions. Article 21, which protects personal liberty, must be considered even when dealing with parliamentary privileges. The extent of parliamentary powers is subject to the limits imposed by fundamental rights. If one’s personal liberty is infringed due to parliamentary actions, Article 21 would provide protection. This means that fundamental rights cannot be disregarded simply because a case involves parliamentary privilege. The rights of individuals to protection under Articles 20 and 21 must be provided even in matters involving parliamentary privileges.

Supremacy of the Constitution

Even though India has adopted a lot of provisions from the Westminster model of government in England, India’s parliamentary democracy is different in many ways. To understand this better, the Supreme Court referred to the observations made by the Constitution Bench in the U.P. Assembly case in which the Hon’ble Court observed that, in England, the Parliament holds supreme power. According to Dicey, Parliament can make or unmake any law, and no person or body can override its legislation. Parliament’s authority extends across all parts of the Queen’s dominions. This principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the legislative power in England is centralised and absolute. Whereas, India’s federal Constitution has a distribution of power among different bodies, namely, the executive, legislative and judicial branches. These bodies operate independently and coordinate with each other. The supremacy of the Constitution is essential to maintain this balance of power and ensure that neither the Parliament nor state legislatures can violate it. This balance is important for states that want to unite without losing their individuality.

This supremacy of the Constitution is maintained by an independent judicial body that interprets the distribution of powers. In a federal system, changes to the Constitution cannot be made through regular federal or state legislation. Therefore, the British model of parliamentary sovereignty does not apply to a federal constitution like India.

Parameters of judicial review

The third issue addressed by the Supreme Court is whether this court has the jurisdiction to interfere when the Parliament uses its power to expel members and, if so, whether there are any limits to exercising this jurisdiction. The court covered the following parameters of judicial review in relation to parliamentary actions and emphasised the balance between respecting the legislature’s role in complying with the Constitution and fundamental rights.

1. Parliament is an important part of the government, and its views should be respected. But its actions can still be reviewed by the courts.
2. The constitutional system rejects absolute power. No one, no matter how important they are, can be the only judge of their power under the Constitution. Courts can review actions that are judicial or quasi-judicial.
3. Decisions about the use of power or privileges by the legislature are for the legislature itself to make and not for the courts.
4. Courts reviewing the exercise of contempt or privilege by the legislature does not mean they are taking over that power.
5. There is an existence of the initial assumption that the legislature acts within the parameters of law and the Constitution, but this can be challenged.
6. Parliament’s status does not prevent courts from using judicial standards to review its actions.
7. Legislative powers are special and extraordinary and courts should use specific standards for review, not the same as are used for regular administrative actions.
8. Courts can examine whether the legislature’s actions violate any fundamental rights of the citizens.
9. If someone claims that their fundamental rights under Articles 20 or 21 are violated, the court must examine the claim, especially if it has serious consequences.
10. There is no absolute immunity or exclusive jurisdiction for parliamentary proceedings under Article 105(3) of the Constitution.
11. The way privileges are enforced by the legislature can be reviewed by courts within constitutional limits.
12. Articles 122(1) and 212(1) prevent courts from questioning legislative proceedings based on procedural irregularities, unlike the system in England.
13. Courts would not question the truth or correctness of the material used by the legislature or substitute their opinion for that of the legislature.
14. Usually, the legislature is not accused of acting for bad reasons but, if such allegations are made, the court can examine them. The burden of proof is high.
15. The rules made by the legislature for its procedures must comply with the Constitution.
16. Just having rules of procedure does not guarantee they have been followed correctly.
17. Legislative proceedings that are grossly illegal or unconstitutional can be reviewed by courts.
18. Courts would not interfere, if there is some relevant material supporting the legislature’s action, even if some material is irrelevant.

Critical analysis of the case 

In the case of Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors. (2006), the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided whether the Parliament could expel its members and whether the courts could review such decisions of the Parliament. The case focused on balancing the powers of Parliament with the need for judicial review to ensure that actions should follow the Constitution. The petitioners argued that their removal was unconstitutional and violated their rights. They said Parliament did not have the explicit power to expel members and that the investigation process in the present case was biased and unfair. They stressed the importance of judicial review to make sure Parliament’s actions are lawful and just. On the other hand, the respondent argued that Parliament had the right to manage its own affairs, including expelling members. They argued that the expulsion was a necessary measure to maintain the integrity and reputation of Parliament and their actions are protected under Article 105(3) of the Constitution, which grants parliamentary privileges, and should not be subject to judicial interference.

The majority judgement of the Supreme Court agreed that Parliament has the power to expel its members. The court said that, while judicial review is important, it does not extend to questioning the internal decisions of the Parliament unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution or fundamental rights. The court emphasised the need to respect Parliament’s autonomy while ensuring it operates within constitutional limits. They found that the inquiry was conducted fairly and that the decisions were made collectively by the Parliament in good faith to protect its reputation, thus dismissing the petition and upholding the expulsion of the Members. Justice R.V. Raveendran, in his dissenting opinion, held that the Constitution already provides for how members can be removed, which does not include expulsion as a method. That expulsion can only be allowed through a constitutional amendment or specific legislation. This dissent highlights the ongoing debate about the limits of parliamentary privileges and the role of courts in maintaining constitutional order.

Cases where Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors. (2006) was referred

The Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors. (2006) has been referred to in various subsequent judgments to clarify issues related to parliamentary privileges and the scope of judicial review. Here are some cases where the Raja Ram Pal case has been referred:

Amarinder Singh vs. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha & Ors. (2010)

In this case, Amarinder Singh was accused of criminal misconduct and violating rules in exempting 32.10 acres of land that was granted to the Amritsar Improvement Trust from a land acquisition scheme, during his previous term as Chief Minister of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. A special committee of the Assembly was formed in his 13th term and investigated the matter. He was found guilty and, thus, the Assembly expelled him. The Supreme Court held that the Assembly exceeded its powers by expelling Singh on the ground of breach of privilege when there was none in the present term and  that the Assembly should not inquire into actions from the previous term and that the alleged improper exemption of land was an executive act and did not obstruct legislative proceedings. The court quashed the expulsion resolution but clarified it did not prevent an investigation into Singh’s alleged role in the land exemption if warranted.

The court, referring to Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha & Ors. (2006),  stated that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the legislature has the power to punish for contempt, including expulsion for reasons not mentioned in the Constitution. However, the court did not intend to make this power unlimited. By establishing guidelines for judicial review of parliamentary privileges, the court made it clear that the power to punish for contempt should align with protecting the integrity of the legislature and there may be situations where actions outside the legislature could harm its integrity, such as legislators taking bribes for asking questions or voting but, in this case, the respondents have not shown that the appellant’s alleged misconduct had a similar impact. Therefore, the court held that the usage of legislative privileges to recommend the appellant’s expulsion is not a legitimate use of the power of the house.

The Estate Officer & Anr. vs. Parveen Kumar (2009) 

In this case, the appellant had filed the second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Here, the respondent, Praveen Kumar, won the bid for booth no. 93 in Panchkula and paid 10% of the amount. The allotment letter was issued on June 15, 1988, and he made further payments within the required time frames. However, Praveen Kumar did not pay the full amount on time and received physical possession of the booth on April 28, 1993. By September 5, 1993, the plaintiff had paid an additional Rs. 20,000. Praveen Kumar filed a suit in January 2001 challenging the proceedings under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, arguing that interest charges at 18% were unfair and that the resumption of the booth was improper.

The Trial Court, eventually, ruled in favour of Praveen Kumar, finding that the interest charges were illegal and that the resumption order was invalid. The Trial Court also concluded that, while the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is generally limited, if the authority acts illegally, it can intervene. 

The appellate court upheld this decision. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana referring to the Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha & ors. (2006), observed that it was established in this case that judicial review can be used in the following situations:

1. When a decision is beyond the authority of the body that made it.
2. When the decision is fundamentally flawed, such as being illegal, irrational, against constitutional principles, made with bad intent, not following natural justice, or deeply unfair.

In the present case, the Civil Court could only review the decision if it fell into one of these categories. The High Court further held that, since none of these issues were present in this case, the Civil Court should not have reviewed the decision and set aside the earlier judgements and decrees and Praveen Kumar’s suit was dismissed.

A.K. Bose vs. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (2008)

In this case, A.K. Bose was an elected MLA from the constituency of Tiruchirappalli. The Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, exercising his authority, decided to disqualify Bose from the assembly based on allegations that Bose had indulged in corrupt practices during the election and, thus, violated the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 

A.K. Bose challenged his disqualification, arguing that the decision was arbitrary and violated his rights as an elected representative. He contended that the Speaker’s decision was beyond the scope of his authority and that proper legal procedures had not been followed. 

The Madras High Court referred to the Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha & Ors. (2006) and used the principles from its judgement to decide whether the disqualification of A.K. Bose was done fairly and within the limits of the law and, finally, dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to approach the house or the Speaker with regard to redressal of his grievances.

Conclusion 

This case shows how parliamentary privileges and judicial review work together. The Supreme Court decided that while Parliament has significant powers and immunities to function effectively and without undue interference, these powers are not absolute and must be exercised within the framework of the Constitution. The court can review the actions of the Parliament to ensure that it follows the Constitution and does not violate any fundamental rights. The judgement emphasises that no one, including Parliament, is above the Constitution. The court made it clear that parliamentary actions, especially those affecting its members, must be fair and open to judicial review. This ensures that Parliament’s power is not misused and that decisions are made justly. It also highlights the need for transparency and fairness in all parliamentary proceedings. This case highlights the balance needed between different branches of government. It reinforced the supremacy of the Constitution as the guiding document that governs all state actions, ensuring that Parliament’s conduct is lawful and just. The judiciary’s role is crucial in protecting citizens’ rights and maintaining the rule of law. By allowing judicial review of parliamentary actions, the Supreme Court ensures that Parliament operates within its constitutional limits.

Overall, this case is a key reference for understanding parliamentary privileges and the judiciary’s role in maintaining constitutional order. It emphasises accountability and the importance of adhering to democratic principles, ensuring that all branches of government operate within their defined boundaries and respect the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

References

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20615895/ 
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/647343/ 
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61480953/ 
• https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135ad#784