The case of Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors. (2007) is a significant Supreme Court decision concerning parliamentary privileges and the scope of judicial review in India. The case primarily dealt with whether the Parliament has the power to expel its members and the extent to which such decisions can be reviewed by the courts.
Facts of the Case
In December 2005, a sting operation by Cobrapost revealed several Members of Parliament (MPs) allegedly accepting bribes to ask questions in Parliament. This led to public outcry and investigations by Parliament’s internal committees. The Lok Sabha expelled ten MPs based on these findings, and the Rajya Sabha expelled one MP on similar grounds. The expelled members challenged their expulsions in the Supreme Court, arguing that the actions were unconstitutional and violated their fundamental rights.
Issues Raised
- Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: Whether the Supreme Court can decide on the scope of parliamentary powers and privileges, including the power of expulsion.
- Power of Expulsion: Whether the power of expulsion is included in the parliamentary privileges under Article 105 of the Constitution.
- Judicial Review: Whether the Supreme Court can review the Parliament’s decision to expel members, and if so, are there limits to this review?
Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- Pre-Determined Bias: The petitioners argued that the decision to expel them was made before the investigation was completed, indicating bias and a pre-determined outcome.
- Inherent Powers: They contended that Indian legislatures did not inherit all the powers of the UK Parliament, specifically the power of expulsion, and that such power was not explicitly granted by the Constitution.
- Violation of Natural Justice: The petitioners claimed that the expulsion process violated principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to challenge evidence.
- Constitutional Supremacy: They argued that any legislative action must comply with constitutional provisions and that judicial review is necessary to uphold constitutional protections.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- Constitutional Provision: The respondents argued that Article 105(3) of the Constitution grants Parliament the power to manage its internal affairs, including the expulsion of members.
- Parliamentary Sovereignty: They emphasized that Parliament has the sovereign right to handle its internal proceedings and discipline its members without external interference, including from the judiciary.
- No Bad Faith: The expulsion was conducted in good faith to protect Parliament’s reputation and was based on established evidence of misconduct.
Key Constitutional Provisions
1. Article 105: Powers, Privileges, and Immunities of Parliament
- Freedom of Speech: Members of Parliament (MPs) have the right to speak freely during parliamentary proceedings without legal repercussions, provided it is within the framework of parliamentary rules.
- Immunity from Liability: MPs cannot be held liable in any court for anything said or any vote cast in Parliament or its committees.
- Publication Immunity: No one can be held liable for the publication of parliamentary reports, papers, votes, or proceedings.
- Defining Privileges: Parliament has the authority to define its powers, privileges, and immunities through legislation. Until such laws are made, these privileges align with those of the House of Commons of the UK as of the Constitution’s commencement.
- Application: These provisions apply to anyone who has the right to speak in Parliament or take part in its proceedings or committees.
2. Article 122: Restrictions on Court Inquiries
- Procedural Matters: Courts cannot question the validity of parliamentary proceedings solely based on alleged procedural irregularities.
- Parliamentary Authority: Officers and members managing parliamentary procedures are not subject to court control or judgment regarding their exercise of powers within Parliament.
Constitutional Principles
1. Supremacy of the Constitution
- Fundamental Rights: The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights that cannot be infringed upon by laws or actions of the State.
- Judicial Review: The Supreme Court and High Courts have the authority to review laws and executive actions to ensure they comply with constitutional provisions.
- Amendment Procedure: Amendments to the Constitution require a special majority in Parliament and, in some cases, ratification by state legislatures.
- Basic Structure Doctrine: Certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the supremacy of the Constitution and the principle of separation of powers, cannot be altered by amendments. This doctrine was established in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973).
2. Article 13
- Invalid Laws: Any law that contravenes fundamental rights is deemed void.
Parliamentary Privileges
1. Freedom of Speech: MPs can speak freely in Parliament without fear of defamation suits or other legal actions related to their parliamentary duties.
2. Freedom from Arrest: MPs have immunity from arrest in civil cases during a session of Parliament, plus 40 days before and after a session. This immunity does not cover criminal charges.
3. Internal Regulation: Each house of Parliament has the power to regulate its internal affairs, including disciplining its members. This power extends to suspending or expelling members.
4. Exemption from Testimony: MPs cannot be compelled to attend court as witnesses during parliamentary sessions.
5. Confidentiality: Proceedings of Parliament and its committees are confidential, and members cannot be forced to disclose information from these proceedings in court.
6. Exclusion of Strangers: Parliament can exclude non-members from its proceedings and conduct secret sessions if necessary.
Judicial Review
1. Essential Feature: Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that legislative and executive actions comply with constitutional provisions.
2. Power and Scope: Although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, judicial review is implied through Articles 13, 32, 136, and 226. It is used to protect fundamental rights, assess the constitutional validity of laws, and ensure that government actions do not exceed their authority.
3. Landmark Cases: Cases like Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) and L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) have shaped the understanding and scope of judicial review in India.
Majority Judgment
Judges: Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, and Justice D.K. Jain
- Principles Governing Judicial Review:
- Respect for Parliament: While the Parliament is crucial and its views are to be respected, its actions are still subject to judicial review. Courts can review legislative actions to ensure they do not violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions.
- Limits on Judicial Review: Courts cannot question the adequacy of evidence or the truth of legislative decisions but can review whether actions are taken in bad faith or for improper purposes. Clauses preventing judicial review are generally upheld unless there is serious illegality or constitutional violation.
- Review of Legislative Privileges: Courts ensure legislative actions conform to the Constitution and protect fundamental rights.
- Examination of Specific Claims:
- Speaker’s Statements: The Court found that the Speaker’s statements did not indicate prejudgment of MPs but were a reflection of concern and a commitment to proper procedure.
- Inquiry Process: The formation of Inquiry Committees, including opposition members, indicated a fair process to investigate allegations. The decisions were a collective outcome rather than individual bias.
- Procedural Distinctions: Articles 103 and the Tenth Schedule, dealing with disqualifications, were distinguished from the expulsion power under Article 105(3). The Court found no issue with the Speaker’s actions and saw no merit in claims of doctored evidence or procedural violations.
- Fundamental Rights: The expelled MPs were given a fair opportunity to present their case. The Court did not find a violation of natural justice or fundamental rights.
- Conclusion: The majority opinion upheld the expulsion decisions as a matter of parliamentary self-protection and found the petitioners’ claims lacking merit. The Court’s role was limited to reviewing legality and constitutionality, not substituting its judgment for that of the legislature.
Dissenting Judgment
Judge: Justice R.V. Raveendaram
- Constitutional Provisions:
- Articles 101 and 102: Justice Raveendaram argued that Articles 101 and 102 outline how a seat is vacated or disqualifications are determined, and do not explicitly mention expulsion as a mode of cessation of membership. Thus, expulsion should not be covered under Article 105(3).
- Limits on Expulsion: He contended that Parliament does not have inherent power to expel members under Article 105(3). The power to expel members should be specified in Articles 102 or 101, or a new law should be enacted to allow such action.
- Alternative Measures:
- Criminal Prosecution: If an MP is accused of corruption, they should be prosecuted according to the law.
- Suspension: MPs under criminal investigation can be temporarily suspended to prevent participation in parliamentary activities.
- Disqualification: Conviction under Article 102(1)(e) would lead to disqualification, while acquittal would allow continued membership.
- Conclusion: Justice Raveendaram found the expulsion actions to be in violation of Articles 101 to 103. He deemed the expulsion invalid, arguing that Parliament lacked the authority to expel members under the Constitution as it stood.
Rationale behind the judgment:
1. Court’s Jurisdiction to Decide on the Scope of Article 105(3)
- Scope of Article 105(3): The Supreme Court examined whether it has jurisdiction to determine the scope of legislative powers and privileges, specifically under Article 105(3) of the Indian Constitution. This article deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of the Parliament and its members.
- Jurisdiction Affirmed: The court reaffirmed its jurisdiction to review legislative powers, including those granted under Article 105(3). Although Parliament has the authority to define its own powers and privileges, it must act within constitutional limits. In the absence of a specific law enacted by Parliament defining these powers, the court referred to the powers enjoyed by the House of Commons at the time of the Indian Constitution’s commencement.
- Reference to Precedents: The court referred to several key cases, including:
- Bradlaugh vs. Gossett (1884): Affirmed the House of Commons’ control over its procedures and members.
- Prebble vs. Television New Zealand Ltd. (1994): Held that parliamentary proceedings are generally not subject to court scrutiny.
- Pandit M.S.M. Sharma vs. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha (1959) and M.S.M. Sharma vs. Shree Krishna Sinha (1961): Reinforced legislative privileges and the limited scope of judicial review over legislative procedures.
- State of Karnataka vs. Union of India & Ors. (1977): Clarified that legislative bodies cannot exempt their members from ordinary legal responsibilities.
2. Power of Expulsion
- Parliamentary Powers: The Court confirmed that Parliament does possess the power to expel its members, which is consistent with the powers enjoyed by the British House of Commons at the time of the Constitution’s commencement. This power is part of the legislative privilege to maintain the integrity of the institution.
- Limits of Legislative Powers: While Parliament can expel members for serious misconduct, its powers are not judicial and cannot substitute the role of ordinary courts in handling criminal matters. The powers to expel members must be exercised within constitutional boundaries.
3. Parliamentary Privilege and Fundamental Rights
- Integration of Rights: The court highlighted the need to harmoniously interpret fundamental rights with parliamentary privileges. Fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 must be upheld even when dealing with parliamentary privileges.
- Supremacy of the Constitution: Unlike the UK’s principle of parliamentary sovereignty, India’s federal Constitution mandates that no legislative body, including Parliament, is above the Constitution. This ensures that legislative actions must align with constitutional provisions, and fundamental rights cannot be overridden by legislative privileges.
4. Parameters of Judicial Review
- Balance of Powers: The Supreme Court emphasized that while the legislature’s role and decisions should be respected, they are not immune from judicial review. The court can review whether legislative actions, including expulsion of members, violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions.
- Limits of Review: Courts are not to question the legislature’s decisions on the adequacy of evidence or substitute their judgment. The review focuses on whether the legislative actions are legal and constitutional rather than on procedural irregularities.
- Judicial Standards: Courts use specific standards for reviewing legislative actions, distinct from those used for regular administrative actions. The review is particularly pertinent if there are allegations of bad faith or constitutional violations.
Conclusion
The judgment underscores the balance between respecting legislative autonomy and ensuring adherence to constitutional principles. The judiciary retains the authority to review legislative actions but within the framework of constitutional boundaries, ensuring that legislative powers do not infringe upon fundamental rights or constitutional provisions.
