Citation: 2007, 3 SCC 184
Case Type: Writ Petition(Civil)
Case No: 1 Of 2006
Petitioner: Raja Ram Pal
Respondents- The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha
Decided On: 10/01/2007
Statues Referred:
- Constitution of India
Cases Referred:
- State of Karnataka V Union of India.
- Kuldip Nayar V Union of India.
- Kesavananda Bharti V State of Kerala.
Bench:
Sabharwal, Y.K. (CJI) & Balakrishnan, K.G. (J) & Thakker, C.K.(J) & R.V. Raveendran (J) & Jain, D.K. (J)
Facts:
A private channel had broadcast a sting operation against 10 MPs of House of People(Lok Sabha) and one Council of State (Rajya Sabha) accepting money, directly or through middleman for raising question in the Parliament.
This received much publicity in media, after which the Presiding Officer of each House of Parliament conducted inquires against the alleged members. Based upon the report of Inquiry Committee, a motion of expulsion was passed from both the House of Parliament.
Issue:
The petitioner contented that the Parliament of India does not possess the power of self-composition and therefore does not inherit the right of expulsion.
Whether under Article 105 the Parliament has right of expulsion
Whether such expulsion be subject to judicial review.
Contention by the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the House of Commons had the power of expulsion as a result of its power to punish for contempt in its capacity as a High Court of Parliament but such status was not accorded to the Indian Parliament and hence it does not have the right to expel members.
Article 105(3) does not bless the Parliament with Right of Expulsion.
The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of all constitutional issues and that the it cannot be left upon the organs of the State to determine the legality of its own action.
The validity of judicial proceeding inside Parliament is subject to the scrutiny of the Court and is not immune from it.
The expulsion is illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional on the ground that the it violates Article 83,84,101,103,105,190,193 of the Constitution.
The right to vote be regarded as fundamental right and that the power of expulsion violates such democratic principle.
The act of expulsion violates Article 19(1)(g) which provides right to practise any profession.
Contention by the Respondent:
The Parliament of India has considered the misconduct of the alleged member as unfit for becoming members of the Parliament.
The Parliament possess the exclusive right to expel its members after holding due inquiry and proceeding within the walls of the Parliament free from any interference. And that the Parliament is the final Judge in such matters.
The right to be represented is not a absolute right and no restriction is created as regards re-election, due to expulsion.
For defensive and protective purposes the Parliament possess the exclusive power to punish for contempt.
Judgement:
The Apex Court’s bench comprising of Sabharwal, Y.K. (CJI) & Balakrishnan, K.G. (J) & Thakker, C.K.(J) & R.V. Raveendran (J) & Jain, D.K. (J) held as follows:-
It is beyond doubt that the Supreme Court possess the jurisdiction to examine matter relating to particular power and privilege as asserted by the legislature.
Hon’ble observed that Article 101 and 102 do speak of qualification and continuation of membership of Member of Parliament but cannot be read with Article 105(3). Hence Article 101 and 102 are not exhaustive.
Article 83(2) and 106 does not confer constitutional rights in strict sense and neither qualify for fundamental rights and hence were not infringed due to expulsion.
The right to vote is a statutory right and not fundamental or constitutional rights. Therefore power of expulsion is not contrary to democratic principle.
CJI Y.K. Sabharwal,K.G. Balakrishnan & D.K. Jain held that “On perusal of the Inquiry reports, we find that there is no violation of any of the fundamental rights in general and Articles 14, 20 or 21 in particular. Proper opportunity to explain and defend having been given to each of the petitioners, the procedure adopted by the two Houses of Parliament cannot be held to be suffering from any illegality, irrationality, unconstitutionality, violation of rules of natural justice or perversity. It cannot be held that the petitioners were not given a fair deal.”
But Justice R. V. Raveendran held an opposing view that there is no power of expulsion in the Parliament, either inherent or traceable to Article 105(3). Expulsion by the House will be possible only if Article 102 or Article 101 is suitably amended or if a law is made under Article 102(1)(e) enabling the House to expel a member found unworthy or unfit of continuing as a member. He held that the power of expulsion exercised by the Parliament were violative of Article 101 to 103 of the Constitution and hence invalid.
Rule of Law:
Article 101 of Constitution of India “Vacation of seats”
(1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of Parliament and provision shall be made by Parliament by law for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one House or the other.
(2) No person shall be a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State and if a person is chosen a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State, then, at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the President, that person’s seat in Parliament shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislature of the State.
(3) If a member of either House of Parliament-
(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualification’s mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 102, or
(b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Chairman or the Speaker, as the as may be, and his resignation is accepted by the chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, his seat shall thereupon become vacant: Provided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.
(4) If for a period of sixty days a member of either House of Parliament is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant:
Provided that in computing the said period of sixty days no account shall be taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than four consecutive days.
Article 102 of Constitution of India “Disqualification’s for membership”
(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament-
(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder;
(b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court;
(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;
(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State;
(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.
Article 103 of Constitution of India “Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members”
(1) If any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision of the President and his decision shall be final.
(2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion.
Article 105 grants privileges to the Member of Parliament which includes
A) freedom of speech in the Parliament
B) right of publication of its proceedings
Under Article 105(3) the power, privileges, and immunities of each House shall until defined by the Parliament be those of that House and its members and its committees immediately before coming into force of the constitution(44th Amendment) Act, 1978.
Conclusion:
This landmark case is a case of “cash for query” judgement of the Supreme Court of India. The scope of parliamentary privilege were analysed. The case expresses the basic feature of Constitutional mechanism of India, the supreme law of land is the Constitution of India and that the other organs of Government derive its power from the Constitution of India.
Kaushal Agarwal.
