Summary Of The Facts:
A sting operation against Lok Sabha (House of People) 10 MPs and one Rajya Sabha
(Council of State) MP who accepted money directly or through a broker in
exchange for raising a point in Parliament was broadcast on a private channel.
After this attracted a lot of media attention, the speakers of each parliament
began investigating the members involved. A motion for expulsion from both
Houses of Parliament was approved based on the inquiry committee's report.
Argument By The Petitioner:
- The petitioner claimed that due to the fact the Indian Parliament lacks
the capacity to self-compose, it does now no longer inherit the proper to
- Whether the Parliament has the proper to eject below Article 105
- Whether a courtroom docket may also look at the expulsion.
The petitioner argued that the Indian Parliament lacks the authority to expel
participants as it does now no longer have the identical popularity because the
House of Commons, which has the authority to penalise for the fact that it is
the High Court of Congress, for contempt.
The proper of expulsion granted to the Parliament with the aid of using Article
105(3) isn't recognised.
Since the Supreme Court is the ultimate judge in all constitutional matters, no
state agency can be relied upon to determine whether its actions are lawful. The
Court of Justice is not exempt from reviewing the legality of judicial
proceedings before Congress.
According to Articles 83, 84, 101, 103, 105, 190 and 193 of the Constitution,
deportation is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The right to expulsion violates the democratic principle that the right to vote
is a fundamental right.
Expulsion violates Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees freedom of employment.
Argument By The Respondent:
Because of the questionable member's behavior, the Indian Parliament deemed him
or her unfit to serve in Parliament. Congress has the exclusive power to expel
members after conducting thorough investigations and acting independently within
the walls of Congress. Moreover, Congress acts as the final arbitrator in
certain cases. Representation is not an absolute right, and dismissal does not
affect re-election. Congress has the sole power to punish violations of the
goals of defense and protection.
Summary Of Judgement:
Supreme Court bench composed of Sabharwal, Y.K. (CJI), Balakrishnan, K.G. (J),
Tucker, C.K. (J), R.V. Raveendran (J) and Jain, D.K. (J) reached the following
Needless to say, the Supreme Court has the power to consider issues affecting
the specific powers and privileges asserted by the legislature.
The Lord points out that while Rules 101 and 102 discuss the requirements and
eligibility to remain in Congress, they cannot be read in conjunction with Rule
105. (3). As they are not comprehensive, Sections 101 and 102 apply.
Strictly speaking, sections 83(2) and 106 were not violated by expulsion because
they do not confer fundamental rights and do not meet the criteria for
fundamental rights. The right to vote is not fundamentally or constitutionally
protected. Rather, they are legal rights. Expulsion powers do not violate
CJI Y.K. said, "After reviewing the investigative report, we found that there
was no violation of fundamental rights in general, and in particular Articles
14, 20, or 21." Sabharwal, K.G. Balakrishnan and D.K. Jain ruled. The procedures
used by he two Houses of Parliament cannot be considered illegal, unreasonable,
unconstitutional, contrary to the principles of natural law. The allegation that
the complainant was not treated fairly is untenable.
But Justice R.V. Raveendran dissented, arguing that neither section 105 nor its
inherent banishment clause gave Congress such power (3). Only if rules 102 or
101 are duly amended, or if a law is passed under rule 102(1)(e), will the House
of Commons become unfit to continue as a Member of Parliament, or has the power
to expel any Member of the Board who he or she deems ineligible. He argued that
the powers of expulsion used by Congress were illegal because they violated
Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution.
Critique Of Judgement:
But Justice R.V. Raveendran opposed this, arguing that neither Article 105 nor
its inherent banishment clause gave Congress such power (3). Only if rules 102
or 101 are duly amended, or if a law is passed under rule 102(1)(e), the House
of Representatives may no longer remain a Member of Parliament, or may become a
Member of Parliament. has the power to banish A board of directors that he or
she deems ineligible for election. He argued that the exclusive powers used by
Congress were illegal because they violated Articles 101 to 103 of the
There are no new categories of termination due to expulsion that may be
established using the subsidiary powers, privileges or immunities set forth in
Section 105. Determine if vacancies are the result of member resignations and
consequent vacancies. In view of the above, I believe that the dismissal of
petitioners by both houses of the Senate is illegal and violates Articles
101-103 of the Constitution. As a result, the petitioner will continue to run
for the House of Representatives (subject to a disqualification trial).
Forwarded cases and petitions were handled correctly.
Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Arpita Sahu
Authentication No: MY350625276106-20-0523