New Delhi: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment on a batch of petitions questioning the validity and legality of termination of membership of 11 Members of Parliament (10 from the Lok Sabha and one Rajya Sabha member) for their alleged involvement in the ``cash for query scam.''

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justices K.G. Balakrishnan, C.K. Thakker, R.V. Raveendran and D.K. Jain reserved the verdict at the conclusion of arguments that spread over four weeks.

On behalf of the petitioners Raja Ram Pal and 10 others, it was maintained that Parliament had no power and jurisdiction to terminate the membership of a member and expel him.

It was argued that disqualification must be created by law and not by a resolution of the House.

Further, unlike certain restrictions under Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression), the rights of an MP under Article 105 (powers, privileges etc. of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof) could not be subjected to any restriction.

However, on behalf of the Centre it was asserted that Parliament had the power to expel a member for conduct, which might offend the House, or for behaviour, which interfered in the discharge of its proceedings.

Parliament had necessary powers for due and orderly exercise of its functions and for protecting itself from all impediments to the discharge of its functions and expulsion power was an incident of the right of the House to regulate its own affairs, including the power to punish its members.

Protection, immunity

On behalf of the Attorney General, it was submitted that courts had no jurisdiction to intervene in expulsion of MPs.

The proceedings in Parliament under question were entitled to protection and immunity as provided under Article 105 (2). "The actions of Parliament, except when they are translated into law, cannot be questioned in court."

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