Quick answer
Yes to both. In Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (10 January 2007), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held by 4:1 that each House of Parliament has the power to expel a member as part of its privileges under Article 105(3), and upheld the expulsion of members caught in the 2005 "cash-for-query" sting. The Court also held that privilege is not beyond judicial review: courts can examine an expulsion for gross illegality, unconstitutionality, mala fides, violation of natural justice or perversity, though not for a mere irregularity of procedure (Article 122).
The case
Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2006 with connected cases, Supreme Court of India, decided 10 January 2007. Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J., K.G. Balakrishnan, C.K. Thakker, R.V. Raveendran and D.K. Jain, JJ. On 12 December 2005 the TV channel Aaj Tak telecast "Operation Duryodhana", showing members of Parliament accepting money for tabling questions. After inquiry committees reported, Lok Sabha expelled ten members and Rajya Sabha one member on 23 December 2005; Rajya Sabha later expelled another member in March 2006 over a separate sting on the MPLAD scheme. The majority (Sabharwal, C.J., with Thakker, J. concurring) dismissed all the petitions; Raveendran, J. dissented.
The constitutional provisions
- Article 105(3): the powers, privileges and immunities of each House are those defined by Parliament by law; until so defined, they are those the House had immediately before Section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 came into force. Since the House of Commons could expel members when the Constitution began, the Court read that power into Article 105(3).
- Article 122(1): the validity of proceedings in Parliament cannot be questioned on the ground of an alleged irregularity of procedure.
- State legislatures: the parallel provisions are Article 194(3) and Article 212(1), and the same principles apply.
What courts will and will not review
| Courts will not examine | Courts can examine |
|---|---|
| Whether exercising the privilege was expedient or necessary | Gross or substantive illegality, or unconstitutionality |
| The truth, correctness or adequacy of the material before the House | Violation of fundamental rights, such as Articles 20 and 21 |
| Mere irregularity of procedure (Article 122(1)) | Mala fides (onus on the member is extremely heavy), irrationality, perversity |
| Proportionality of the punishment chosen | Non-compliance with the rules of natural justice |
Key points of the ruling
- Parliament deserves deference as a co-ordinate organ, but there is no "exclusive cognizance" (complete immunity from courts) for its proceedings under Article 105(3).
- Expulsion does not violate democratic principles: it is a collective decision of the House, and the expelled member may stand for re-election.
- On the facts, the members had a fair chance to explain and the committees relied on raw video footage, so no illegality was found.
Example
Neha, a member of Lok Sabha, is filmed accepting cash to raise a question. A committee calls for her explanation and shows her the footage, and the House votes to expel her. She cannot ask the Supreme Court to re-weigh the evidence or to hold that suspension would have been enough. But if the House had expelled her with no opportunity to answer the charge at all, she could challenge the expulsion as a breach of natural justice.
Current law note
Raja Ram Pal remains good law on expulsion and judicial review. Separately, in Sita Soren v. Union of India (4 March 2024), a seven-judge bench overruled the majority view in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998) 4 SCC 626 and held that a legislator who takes a bribe cannot claim immunity from criminal prosecution under Article 105(2) or 194(2). A cash-for-query member can therefore face both expulsion and criminal prosecution. For a fuller brief, see Raja Ram Pal v. Honourable Speaker, Lok Sabha.
Exam point
Raja Ram Pal (2007, 4:1): each House can expel a member under Article 105(3), but the exercise of privilege is open to judicial review for gross illegality, unconstitutionality, mala fides or breach of natural justice; Article 122 shields only procedural irregularity.
Sources and further reading
- Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (10 January 2007), majority judgment, Indian Kanoon
- Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (10 January 2007), full text with concurring and dissenting opinions, Indian Kanoon
- Article 122, Constitution of India, Indian Kanoon
- Sita Soren v. Union of India (4 March 2024), judgment text, Indian Kanoon
