Supreme Court Upholds Expulsion of Members of Parliament in Corruption Case — Constitutional Validity of Expulsion Examined.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved the expulsion of ten members of Lok Sabha and one member of Rajya Sabha following allegations of accepting bribes for raising questions in Parliament, as revealed by a sting operation aired by a news channel. The Speaker of Lok Sabha initiated an inquiry, leading to the formation of an Enquiry Committee that found the members' conduct unethical and unbecoming. The Lok Sabha subsequently adopted a motion for their expulsion, which was executed on December 23, 2005. The petitioners challenged the expulsion, arguing that the Constitution only allows cessation of membership through specific provisions in Articles 101 and 102, and that expulsion is not a recognized method. The Union of India contended that Parliament possesses the power to expel members as part of its privileges under Article 105(3). The Supreme Court analyzed the constitutional framework, emphasizing that the Indian Parliament operates under the Constitution's limitations, unlike the British Parliament. The Court concluded that while the expulsion was a serious matter, it must be scrutinized for constitutional validity. Ultimately, the Court held that the power of expulsion is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, thus questioning the legality of the action taken against the members.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Parliamentary Privilege - Power of Expulsion - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 101, 102, 105 - The court examined whether the power to expel members is part of parliamentary privilege or if it is limited to the grounds specified in Articles 101 and 102. It held that expulsion is not explicitly provided as a mode of cessation of membership, thus raising constitutional questions regarding the limits of parliamentary power (Paras 8-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Parliament has the power to expel its members resulting in permanent cessation of membership.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court held that the power of expulsion is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, thus questioning the legality of the action taken against the members.

Law Points

  • Parliamentary Privilege
  • Expulsion of Members
  • Constitutional Interpretation
  • Representation of People Act
  • 1951
  • Articles 101
  • 102
  • 105
  • 103
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2007 LawText (SC) (02) 254

Writ Petition (civil) 1 of 2006

2007-01-10

R. V. Raveendran

Raja Ram Pal

The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the expulsion of members of Parliament.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to declare the expulsion unconstitutional.

Filing Reason

Allegations of improper conduct and expulsion from Lok Sabha.

Issues

Whether Parliament has the power to expel its members resulting in permanent cessation of membership. Whether Articles 101 and 102 are exhaustive regarding modes of cessation of membership.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that expulsion is not a recognized mode of cessation of membership under the Constitution. Respondents contended that expulsion is part of parliamentary privilege under Article 105(3).

Ratio Decidendi

The Indian Parliament operates under the Constitution's limitations, and the power of expulsion is not explicitly recognized as a mode of cessation of membership.

Judgment Excerpts

The question before us is not whether the petitioners are guilty of having taken money for asking questions, or raising issues in the Parliament. The court cannot fold its hands in despair and declare 'Judicial hands off.'

Procedural History

The case was initiated as a writ petition challenging the expulsion of members of Parliament following a sting operation.

Acts & Sections

  • Representation of People Act, 1951: Section 8
  • Constitution of India: Articles 101, 102, 103, 105
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Hears Appeal Against Conviction Under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC. Appellant Contends That Evidence Only Proves Attempt to Rape, Not Penetration, Challenging Conviction for Rape of a Minor Below 12 Years.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Market Fee Levy by Mandi Samitis in Fee Dispute; Holds Broad Co-relationship Between Fee and Services Sufficient. High Court Remand to Fee-Levying Authority Set Aside; Strict Quid Pro Quo Not Required Under Market Committee Legi...