Raja Ram Pal v. Honourable Speaker, Lok Sabha

In December 2005, a T.V. channel broadcast a sting operation, recorded with a hidden camera, that became known as the cash for query scandal. It showed some M.P.s willing to accept money to ask questions in Parliament on someone's behalf.

Eleven M.P.s were caught in the sting: ten from the Lok Sabha and one from the Rajya Sabha. The broadcast became a major media issue. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha each set up an inquiry committee. After the inquiries, both Houses voted to expel these M.P.s, ending their membership.

Raja Ram Pal was one of the expelled M.P.s. The expelled members challenged the expulsion before the Supreme Court. Both Houses chose not to appear, so the Union of India defended the expulsion.

1. Does Parliament have the power under Article 105 to expel a member?

2. Can a court review Parliament's decision to expel a member?

3. Does expulsion violate democratic principles and fundamental rights?

Petitioners (the expelled M.P.s):
- Parliament has no power of expulsion at all, because the Indian Parliament does not have powers like those of the British House of Commons.
- Article 105(3) does not mention expulsion anywhere.
- Their fundamental rights, such as the right under Article 19(1)(g), were violated, and the rights of their voters were affected, which goes against democratic principles.
- Articles 101 to 103 give an exhaustive list of the ways in which membership can end. Article 101 deals with vacation of seats, Article 102 with disqualification and Article 103 with deciding disqualification questions. None of them mentions expulsion, so the expulsion was illegal and arbitrary.
- The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution, so Parliament's decision must fall within judicial review.

Respondents (Union of India, as both Houses did not appear):
- The M.P.s' conduct made them unfit to continue as members, so the expulsion was disciplinary action against their behaviour.
- Parliament has the exclusive power to punish its own members, whether for contempt or misconduct.
- Remaining an M.P. is not an absolute right, and an expelled member can contest elections again in the future.
- Disciplinary proceedings within Parliament cannot be challenged in court, because Parliament acts in its own sovereign capacity when protecting its privileges.

The judgment was delivered on 10 January 2007 by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Y. K. Sabharwal. The majority was four to one.

Judicial review: The Court held that it has the power of judicial review. If Parliament does something unconstitutional in the name of privilege, the Supreme Court can intervene. Article 122 bars a challenge to proceedings in Parliament only on the ground of irregularity of procedure. The Court drew a line between irregularity and illegality. It will not intervene over a minor procedural mistake. It can examine cases of gross illegality, irrationality, violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, violation of natural justice or perversity.

Validity of expulsion: The Court upheld the expulsion. Under Article 105(3), Parliament has the privilege of protecting its own dignity and functioning, and this includes the power to expel a member for serious misconduct.

Democratic principles and rights: The Court held that the right to vote is only a statutory right, not a fundamental right, and that the right to representation is not absolute. An expelled member can contest elections again, so there was no violation of democratic principle.

Natural justice: The members were given a chance to state their case, so the procedure was fair and natural justice was not violated.

Dissent: Justice R. V. Raveendran held that Article 105(3) does not give Parliament the power of expulsion. In his view, Articles 101 and 102 completely settle when membership ends. To make expulsion a ground, Article 101 or 102 would have to be amended, or a separate law made. He therefore held the expulsion power unconstitutional and contrary to the scheme of Articles 101, 102 and 103.

Article 105(1) of the Constitution of India; Article 105(2) of the Constitution of India; Article 105(3) of the Constitution of India; Article 122 of the Constitution of India; Article 101 of the Constitution of India; Article 102 of the Constitution of India; Article 103 of the Constitution of India; Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978

The case is regarded as a landmark judgment on the relationship between parliamentary privilege and judicial review. It strikes a balance: Parliament keeps its privilege, including the power to expel members, but the judiciary's power of review is firmly established.

It builds on the 1964 Presidential reference concerning Keshav Singh. There, a seven-judge bench held that legislative privileges must be read with the other provisions of the Constitution, especially fundamental rights and the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts.

Read with Sita Soren, it completes the picture of privileges. Sita Soren held that taking a bribe is not covered by the immunity under Article 105(2). Raja Ram Pal held that a House can expel a member for corrupt conduct, subject to judicial review.

The irregularity versus illegality test under Article 122 and the 4:1 split with Justice Raveendran's dissent are frequently asked in exams.

Hypothetical: Prince and Farhan are M.P.s. A hidden-camera video shows them agreeing to take money from Aadil to raise questions in the Lok Sabha. The House forms a committee and gives both of them a chance to explain. It then votes to expel them.

Prince challenges the expulsion only because a committee form was filled in late. Under Raja Ram Pal, the court would refuse to interfere, because that is a mere procedural irregularity protected by Article 122.

Suppose instead Farhan proves he was expelled out of political malice without any hearing. The court could examine the decision on the grounds of mala fides and violation of natural justice.