New Delhi: Expulsion of a member is part of the powers of Parliament to punish disrespect and affront, and courts will have no jurisdiction to intervene, Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam argued on Tuesday.

He made this submission, on behalf of Attorney-General Milon Banerjee, before a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which is hearing petitions challenging the validity of the expulsion of 10 Lok Sabha members and one Rajya Sabha member.

The court, while issuing notice to the Centre, asked the Attorney-General to assist the court as important questions of law were raised in the petitions. Mr. Subramaniam, quoting various precedents and May's Parliamentary Practice, said "acceptance of bribe by a member to influence his conduct as a member is contempt. Each House would have an interest in the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity."

Internal management

In internal management of the affairs, "the matter rests between the House, its members and committees. The question whether there has been any breach of privilege must be left to be determined by the House."

Mr. Subramaniam said, "If a member is excluded from participating in the proceedings, that is a matter concerning Parliament and the grievance of exclusion is in regard to proceedings within the walls of Parliament. With regard to rights to be exercised within the walls of the House, the House itself is the judge."

He said, "if injustice was done by the Legislature, the courts would not be able to offer any remedy." Proceedings relating to members or their actions inside the House were indeed matters of internal administration of Parliament, "where courts would have little or no jurisdiction."

Mr. Subramaniam asserted, "once privilege is shown to exist, the exercise of that privilege and the manner of exercise of that privilege must be left to the domain of Parliament, without any interference."

Judicial review was the amenability of courts to examine the validity of action. "But where judicially manageable standards, i.e. normative standards, are not available, judicial review must be impliedly excluded. Parliament is not a body inferior to the courts."

Immunity

An administrative tribunal in which statutory jurisdiction was vested "can certainly be subjected to judicial review to discover errors of fact or errors of law within its jurisdiction." Jurisdictional errors could not be attributed to Parliament. Though the frontiers of judicial review now widened in the Wednesbury sense, i.e. where illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety could be the causes, such principles would have absolutely no basis in judging Parliament's action. The proceedings in question were entitled to protection and immunity as provided under Article 105 (2).

Mr. Subramaniam said, "the actions of Parliament, except when they are translated into law, cannot be questioned in court. To view Parliament as a body, which is capable of committing an error in respect of its powers, privileges and immunities, would be an indirect comment that Parliament may act unwarrantedly. There is every hope that Parliament would never punish one for `an ugly face' or apply a principle which is abhorrent to the Constitution."

Further arguments will continue on Wednesday before the Bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice C.K. Thakker, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice D.K. Jain.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail