RAJA RAM PAL V. HON’BLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA (2007) 3 SCC 184

 

RAJA RAM PAL V. HON’BLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA (2007) 3 SCC 184

 

FACTS

A sting operation conducted on 10 Members of Parliament from the Lok Sabha (House of People) and one Member of Parliament from the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) revealed their acceptance of money, either directly or through intermediaries, in exchange for raising specific issues in Parliament. This operation garnered significant media coverage and prompted investigations by the respective parliamentary speakers. Subsequently, both Houses of Parliament passed a motion for the expulsion of these implicated members based on the findings of an inquiry committee.

ISSUES:

• Does Parliament have the authority to expel members under Article 105 of the Constitution?
• Can such expulsion be subject to judicial review?

 

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS:

The petitioner contended that the Indian Parliament lacks the legitimate power to expel its members, as it does not possess the same authority as the House of Commons, which has the capacity to penalize members for contempt as it functions as the High Court of Congress. The petitioner argued that the right of expulsion granted to Parliament through Article 105(3) is not recognized.

Furthermore, the petitioner emphasized that the Supreme Court holds the ultimate authority in all constitutional matters, and no state agency should have the sole discretion to determine the lawfulness of its actions. The petitioner maintained that even the actions of the Parliament should be subject to judicial review, as outlined in Articles 83, 84, 101, 103, 105, 190, and 193 of the Constitution. The petitioner asserted that expulsion violates democratic principles, particularly the fundamental right to vote, and infringes upon Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the freedom of employment.

 

RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS:

The respondents argued that due to the questionable behavior of certain members, the Indian Parliament deemed them unfit to continue serving in Parliament. They contended that the Parliament possesses exclusive authority to expel members after conducting thorough investigations and acting independently within its legislative body. Additionally, the respondents asserted that the Parliament acts as the final arbiter in specific cases. They maintained that the right to representation is not an absolute entitlement, and expulsion does not impact the possibility of re-election. According to the respondents, the Parliament holds the sole power to address violations of the objectives of defense and protection.

 

JUDGMENT-

• The majority judgment emphasized that Rules 101 and 102 govern the eligibility and requirements for retaining membership in Parliament and should not be conflated with Rule 105(3). It noted that Sections 101 and 102 apply independently. The majority opinion asserted that the expulsion did not violate Articles 83(2) and 106 because these provisions do not grant fundamental rights and do not meet the criteria for fundamental rights. It clarified that the right to vote is not fundamentally or constitutionally protected but constitutes a legal right. Therefore, the powers of expulsion were not found to contravene democratic principles.
• Chief Justice Y.K. and Justices Sabharwal, K.G. Balakrishnan, and D.K. Jain held that, upon reviewing the investigative report, they found no infringement of fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 20, or 21, in general. They deemed the procedures used by both Houses of Parliament as lawful, reasonable, constitutional, and not contrary to the principles of natural law. They dismissed the claim that the complainant was treated unfairly.
• Justice R.V. Raveendran dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that neither Article 105 nor its inherent expulsion clause granted Parliament the power to expel members. He contended that Parliament could gain such authority only through the amendment of Rules 102 or 101 or the enactment of a law under Rule 102(1)(e). Justice Raveendran asserted that the expulsion powers exercised by Parliament were unlawful as they violated Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution.