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

Bench

A 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court:

1. Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.
2. K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
3. C.K. Thakker, J.
4. R.V. Raveendran, J.
5. D.K. Jain, J.

Facts

• A sting operation conducted by a private news channel in 2005 exposed Members of Parliament (MPs) accepting bribes in exchange for asking questions in Parliament.
• The scandal involved 10 MPs from the Lok Sabha and 1 MP from the Rajya Sabha.
• The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha set up inquiry committees to investigate the conduct of the MPs.
• The committees found the MPs guilty of misconduct, and they were expelled from their respective Houses.
• Raja Ram Pal, one of the expelled MPs, along with other expelled members, challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that:
  1. The Parliament had no power to expel its members in such circumstances.
  2. The expulsion violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
  3. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the internal matters of Parliament.

Issues

1. Does the Parliament have the power to expel its members for unethical or corrupt conduct?
2. Are the actions of the Parliament regarding expulsion subject to judicial review?
3. Does the expulsion violate the fundamental rights of the expelled MPs under Articles 14, 19, or 21?

Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle)

• Parliament has the power to expel its members under Article 105(3) of the Constitution.
• The power of expulsion is a part of the privileges of Parliament, which are derived from the privileges enjoyed by the British House of Commons at the time of the commencement of the Indian Constitution.
• Judicial Review of Parliamentary Privileges: While Parliament has the power to expel its members, this power is not beyond judicial review. The Supreme Court held that the courts can interfere if the action of Parliament is unconstitutional, arbitrary, or violates fundamental rights.
• No violation of fundamental rights: The Court held that the expulsion of the MPs did not violate their rights under Articles 14, 19, or 21, as the action was taken in the larger interest of parliamentary integrity.

Observations

• Parliamentary privileges are subject to judicial review when fundamental rights or constitutional provisions are violated.
• Parliamentary democracy requires the integrity of its members, and Parliament has the right to expel members whose conduct undermines the dignity of the House.
• The concept of separation of powers does not mean absolute immunity for Parliament. While courts generally do not interfere in internal parliamentary proceedings, they can intervene when fundamental rights are at stake.

Decision

• The Supreme Court upheld the expulsion of the MPs, stating that Parliament has the right to expel members who act against the dignity of the institution.
• However, it also ruled that judicial review applies to parliamentary privileges, meaning that courts can examine whether Parliament acted in accordance with constitutional principles.
• The petitioners’ challenge was dismissed, and the decision to expel the MPs remained valid.

Important Terms

1. Article 105 (Powers and Privileges of Parliament)

• Article 105 grants Parliament and its members certain privileges similar to those of the British House of Commons.
• These privileges include freedom of speech in Parliament and the power to regulate internal proceedings.
• The Supreme Court ruled that this includes the power to expel members for misconduct.

2. Parliamentary Privileges

• Parliamentary privileges are special rights and immunities granted to members of Parliament to ensure they can perform their duties without interference.
• However, these privileges are not absolute and are subject to constitutional limitations.

3. Judicial Review

• Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the actions of Parliament and the government to ensure they comply with the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court held that while courts cannot interfere in parliamentary procedures, they can review actions that violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions.

4. Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 19, and 21)

• Article 14 (Right to Equality): The expelled MPs argued that their expulsion was arbitrary and violated Article 14. The Court ruled that the expulsion was based on clear evidence of misconduct and was not arbitrary.
• Article 19 (Freedom of Speech): The MPs claimed that their right to free speech was violated. The Court ruled that parliamentary privileges can override Article 19 in certain cases.
• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The MPs argued that expulsion affected their ability to earn a livelihood. The Court held that Article 21 does not guarantee a right to hold a parliamentary seat.