Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) 3 SCC 184

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 1,135

Citation	(2007) 3 SCC 184
Date of judgement	10/01/2007
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Type	Writ Petition(Civil)
Petitioner	Raja Ram Pal
Respondents	The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha
Bench	Sabharwal, Y.K. (CJI) & Balakrishnan, K.G. (J) & Thakker, C.K.(J)& R.V. Raveendran (J) & Jain, D.K. (J).
Referred	Art.13 (2) of the Constitution of India

INTRODUCTION –

“That the Constitution is the Supreme lex in this Country is beyond the pale of any controversy,” the court declared in Raja Ram Pal. The Constitution is the source of all state authority and allegiance for all governmental entities. This also applies to this Court, which serves as the judicial body.

In the present case, the main issue before the court was whether the Houses of Parliament had the authority to dismiss their respective Members from membership in the House when exercising the powers, privileges, and immunities of the members of parliament. If such a power exists, is it subject to judicial review, and if so, what the parameters of that review would be? Additionally, would a court have the authority to hear such a case?

The aforementioned claim that MPs engaged in dishonest and immoral behaviour by receiving money in exchange for performing their duties as MPs gave birth to the aforementioned question.

FACTS –

A criminal investigation against 10 Lok Sabha (House of People) MPs and one Rajya Sabha (Council of State) MP who accepted money directly or through a broker in exchange for raising a point in Parliament was broadcast on a private channel.

The Presiding Officer of each House of Parliament then conducted inquiries against the suspected members after this gained a lot of media attention. A motion for expulsion from both Houses of Parliament was approved based on the inquiry committee’s report.

ISSUES –

The petitioner claimed that because the Indian Parliament lacks the ability to self-compose, it does not inherit the right to expel.
Whether the Parliament has the right to reject under Article 105 ?
Whether a judicial body can review the expulsion ?

CONTENTION BY THE PETITIONER –

The petitioner argued that the Indian Parliament lacks the authority to expel members because it does not have the same status as the House of Commons, which has the authority to penalize for contempt in its function as a High Court of Parliament.
The right of expulsion granted to the Parliament by Article 105(3) is not recognized.
Since the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal of all constitutional disputes, the State’s organs cannot be trusted to decide whether their own actions are lawful.

The Court may examine and is not exempt from reviewing the legality of judicial proceedings inside the Parliament.

According to Article 83, 84, 101, 103, 105, 190, 193 of the Constitution, the deportation is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.The power of expulsion breaches the democratic tenet that the ability to vote is a fundamental right. Expulsion is against Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the freedom to practise any profession.

CONTENTION BY THE RESPONDENT –

Due to the suspected member’s behaviour, the Indian Parliament deemed him or her ineligible to serve in the legislature. After conducting a thorough investigation and acting independently inside the Parliament’s walls, the Parliament has the exclusive authority to eject a member. Additionally, the Parliament serves as the last arbiter in certain cases.
The right to be represented is not an unqualified one, and being kicked out of office has no bearing on one’s ability to run again. The Parliament has the sole authority to penalise for contempt for defensive and protective objectives.

JUDGEMENT –

The following ruling was made by the bench of the Supreme Court, which was made up of Sabharwal, Y.K. (CJI), Balakrishnan, K.G. (J), Thakker, C.K. (J), R.V. Raveendran (J), and D.K. Jain:-

There is no question that the Supreme Court has the authority to review cases involving specific powers and privileges claimed by the legislature.

The Honorable court pointed out that while Articles 101 and 102 do discuss eligibility requirements and maintaining membership in the House of Representatives, they cannot be interpreted in the same way as Article 105(3). As a result, Articles 101 and 102 are not all-inclusive.

Articles 83(2) and 106 do not grant constitutional rights in the strictest sense and do not fall under the category of fundamental rights, hence they were not violated as a result of expulsion.

Voting rights are not basic or protected by the constitution; rather, they are statutory rights. Therefore, the power of expulsion is not contrary to democratic principles.

“On scrutinizing 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,” the CJI Y.K. Sabharwal, K.G. Balakrishnan, and D.K. Jain ruled. The procedure used by the two Houses of Parliament cannot be seen to be subject to any illegality, irrationality, unconstitutionality, violation of the principles of natural justice, or perversity given that each petitioner was given a proper opportunity to explain and defend themselves. The claim that the petitioners did not receive a fair deal cannot be made.

However, Justice R. V. Raveendran disagreed, arguing that neither the inherent nor the Article 105(3)-related expulsion power of the Parliament exists. Only if Articles 102 or 101 are properly changed, or if a bill is passed pursuant to Article 102(1)(e), would the House have the authority to eject a member it finds to be unworthy or unfit to continue serving as a member. He claimed that the expulsion powers used by the Parliament were illegal because they violated Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION –

This significant case involves the Supreme Court of India’s “cash for query” ruling. Analysis was done on the boundaries of parliamentary privilege. The case illustrates the fundamental tenet of India’s constitutional system, according to which the Indian Constitution is the ultimate law of the land and the other branches of government receive their authority from it.

CRITIQUE OF JUDGEMENT –

However, Justice R.V. Raveendran disagreed, contending that neither Article 105 nor its built-in banishment clause granted Congress such authority . The House of Representatives may no longer be a Member of Parliament or may do so only in the event that rules 102 or 101 are duly altered, or in the event that a law is passed in accordance with rule 102(1)(e). has the authority to remove any board members they determine to be ineligible to serve. He claimed that Congress’ use of exclusive powers was unconstitutional since it contravened Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution.

The subsidiary authorities, privileges, or immunities provided forth in Section 105 may not be used to create any new categories of termination owing to expulsion. Identify whether vacancies are caused by member resignations and the ensuing vacancies. In light of the aforementioned, I am of the opinion that the Senate’s decision to dismiss petitioners is unlawful and in violation of Articles 101–103 of the Constitution. So long as a disqualification trial is successful, the petitioner will keep running for the House of Representatives. Cases and petitions that were forwarded were handled properly.

REFERENCES –

Written by Shashank Sandesh Verma an intern under legal vidhiya