Raja Ram pal v. hon’ble speaker, Loksabha (2007) 

Citation-	2007, 3 SCC 184
Date of judgment	10/01/2007
Case no	1 Of 2006
Case type	Writ Petition(Civil)
Petition/appellant	Raja Ram Pal
Defendant/respondent	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)
Court	Supreme Court of India

Statue reffered :

• Constitution of India

Cases referred:

• State of Karnataka V Union of India.
• Kuldip Nayar V Union of India.
• Kesavananda Bharti V State of Kerala.

Introduction-

“The Parliament, the Press (Media), and the Judges, those three great institutions, are protectors of justice and liberty, embodying the spirit of the Constitution.” – Lord Denning. I have had the privilege of reading the comprehensive and scholarly judgment of the learned Chief Justice and the enlightening concurring judgment of learned Brother Thakker J., in which the expulsion of ten members of Lok Sabha and one member of Rajya Sabha was upheld. My respectful disagreement is expressed.

Facts of the case-

• A private channel conducted a sting operation in which 10 Members of the House of People (Lok Sabha) and one Member of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) were shown accepting money, either directly or through intermediaries, in exchange for raising questions in Parliament.

• This operation garnered significant media attention, prompting the Presiding Officer of each House of Parliament to initiate inquiries into the accused members. Following the findings of the Inquiry Committee’s report, motions for expulsion were passed in both Houses of Parliament.

Issue:

1. The contention put forth by the petitioner was that the power of self-composition is not possessed by the Parliament of India, and therefore, it does not acquire the right of expulsion.

2. Whether the right of expulsion is possessed by the Parliament under Article 105.

3. Whether such expulsion is subject to judicial review.

Arguments:

The Petitioner contended that

• The petitioner argued that the House of Commons possessed the power of expulsion due to its authority to penalize for contempt while functioning as a High Court of Parliament. However, such status was not conferred upon the Indian Parliament, and therefore, it does not possess the right to expel members.
• Article 105(3) does not grant the Right of Expulsion to the Parliament.
• The Supreme Court serves as the ultimate arbitrator for all constitutional matters, and it cannot be left to the state organs to determine the legality of their own actions.
• The validity of judicial proceedings within Parliament is subject to scrutiny by the Court and is not immune from it.
• The expulsion is considered illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional because it violates Articles 83, 84, 101, 103, 105, 190, and 193 of the Constitution.
• The right to vote should be regarded as a fundamental right, and the power of expulsion contravenes this democratic principle.
• The act of expulsion violates Article 19(1)(g), which provides the right to practice any profession.

The Respondent maintained the following objections that

• The misconduct of the alleged member has been deemed unsuitable for them to be members of the Parliament by the Parliament of India.
• The exclusive right to expel its members is possessed by the Parliament, and this is done after conducting a proper inquiry and proceedings within the confines of the Parliament, free from any external interference. It is in this context that the Parliament is considered the ultimate authority in such cases.
• The right to representation is not an absolute right, and there are no restrictions imposed on     re-election following expulsion.
• For defensive and protective purposes, the exclusive power to punish for contempt is held by the Parliament.

Judgement:

• The viewpoint expressed by the Apex Court, comprising Sabharwal, Y.K. (CJI), Balakrishnan, K.G. (J), Thakker, C.K. (J), R.V. Raveendran (J), and Jain, D.K. (J), can be summarized as follows:
• It is indisputable that the jurisdiction to examine matters related to specific powers and privileges, as asserted by the legislature, falls within the purview of the Supreme Court.
• The Hon’ble Court observed that Article 101 and 102 address the qualification and continuation of a Member of Parliament but cannot be interpreted in conjunction with Article 105(3). Therefore, Article 101 and 102 are not exhaustive.
• Article 83(2) and 106 do not grant constitutional rights in the strictest sense and do not qualify as fundamental rights. Consequently, they were not infringed upon due to expulsion.
• The right to vote is a statutory right, not a fundamental or constitutional one. Therefore, the power of expulsion does not contradict democratic principles.
• CJI Y.K. Sabharwal, K.G. Balakrishnan, and D.K. Jain concluded that after reviewing the Inquiry reports, no violations of fundamental rights, specifically Articles 14, 20, or 21, were found. Each petitioner was given a fair opportunity to explain and defend themselves, and the procedures followed by the two Houses of Parliament were not deemed illegal, irrational, unconstitutional, in violation of natural justice, or perverse.
• However, Justice R.V. Raveendran held a differing opinion, stating that there is no inherent or traceable power of expulsion in Parliament under Article 105(3). Expulsion by the House would only be possible if Article 102 or Article 101 were appropriately amended or if a law were enacted under Article 102(1)(e) enabling the House to expel a member found unworthy or unfit to continue as a member. He argued that the power of expulsion exercised by Parliament violated Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution and was therefore invalid.

             Regarding the Rule of Law

• Article 101 of the Constitution of India deals with the “Vacation of Seats,” emphasizing that no person can be a member of both Houses of Parliament.

• Article 102 of the Constitution of India outlines “Disqualifications for Membership,” specifying various disqualifications for being chosen as a member of either House of Parliament.
• Article 103 of the Constitution of India discusses the “Decision on Questions as to Disqualifications of Members,” indicating that the President’s decision on disqualifications is final, with input from the Election Commission.
• Article 105 grants privileges to Members of Parliament, including freedom of speech and the right to publish parliamentary proceedings.
• Under Article 105(3), the powers, privileges, and immunities of each House are defined by Parliament and are those held by the House and its members and committees immediately before the Constitution’s 44th Amendment Act of 1978 came into force.

Conclusion:

This landmark case pertains to the “cash for query” judgment issued by the Supreme Court of India. It involved an analysis of the scope of parliamentary privilege. The case highlights a fundamental aspect of India’s Constitutional system: the Constitution of India serves as the supreme law of the land, and the powers of the other organs of government are derived from it.

Drafted by: Jhalak Varshney, Lloyd Law college, Greater Noida an intern under legal vidhiya.