The Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that the actions of Parliament are subject to judicial review and no absolute immunity can be claimed to usurp the jurisdiction of the court.

Writing the majority judgment upholding the expulsion of MPs in the cash-for-query scam, Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal said: "Parliament is a co-ordinate organ and its views do deserve deference even while its acts are amenable to judicial scrutiny."

A five-judge Constitution Bench said: "Constitutional system of government abhors absolutism and it being the cardinal principle of our Constitution that no one, howsoever lofty, can claim to be the sole judge of the power given under the Constitution. Mere co-ordinate constitutional status, or even the status of an exalted constitutional functionary, does not disentitle this court from exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review of action which partakes the character of judicial or quasi-judicial decision."

The Bench said: "The fact that Parliament is an august body of co-ordinate constitutional position does not mean that there can be no judicially manageable standards to review exercise of its power. The judicature is not prevented from scrutinising the validity of the action of the legislature trespassing on the fundamental rights conferred on the citizens."

Rejecting the arguments of the Union Government, the Bench said: "The contention that the exercise of privileges by legislatures cannot be decided against the touchstone of fundamental rights or the constitutional provisions is not correct."

No absolute immunity

The Bench said: "If a citizen, whether a non-member or a member of the legislature, complains that his fundamental rights under Article 20 or 21 had been contravened, it is the duty of this court to examine the merits of the said contention, especially when the impugned action entails civil consequences. There is no basis to claim of bar of exclusive cognisance or absolute immunity to the parliamentary proceedings in Article 105 (3) of the Constitution."

The Bench said: "Ordinarily, the legislature, as a body, cannot be accused of having acted for an extraneous purpose or being actuated by caprice or mala fide intention and the court will not lightly presume abuse or misuse, giving allowance for the fact that the legislature is the best judge of such matters. But if in a given case, the allegations to such effect are made, the court may examine the validity of the said contention."

It further said: "The Rules which the legislature has to make for regulating its procedure and the conduct of its business have to be subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Mere availability of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business is never a guarantee that that they have been duly followed. The proceedings which may be tainted on account of substantive or gross illegality or unconstitutionality are not protected from judicial scrutiny."

Resolve to find truth

On the contention that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha had pre-judged the issue by stating that the guilty would be punished, the Bench said: "It is clear that when he stated that nobody would be spared he was not immediately passing a judgment that the petitioners were guilty.

He was only giving vent to his feeling on the subject of the proper course of action in the event of the inquiry confirming the facts that had been projected in the telecast. The finding of guilt would come later. The fact that he had constituted an Inquiry Committee with members drawn also from parties in the Opposition rather goes to show that the resolve at that stage was to find the truth."

Quantum of punishment

The Bench did not agree with the allegation of mala fide exercise of power or that the principles of natural justice were violated in the expulsion of the petitioners. On the contention that the quantum of punishment was disproportionate to the charges, it said: "That is a matter which must be left to the prerogative and sole discretion of the legislative body. We are of the considered view that the impugned resolutions of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha cannot be questioned before us on the plea of proportionality."

The Bench said: "This court shall not interfere so long as there is some relevant material sustaining the action. We find this material was available in the form of raw footage of video recordings, the nature of content whereof are reflected in the inquiry reports and on which subject the petitioners have not raised any issue of fact."

Nariman hails verdict

Jurist and senior lawyer Fali Nariman has welcomed the verdict upholding the termination of the membership of 11 MPs, saying "the court has showed great judicial statesmanship. The court has delivered a judgment full of wisdom, very bold."

He said that the judgment showed, "there is no area in the Constitution, which is beyond judicial review. The Constitution reposes final authority in the Supreme Court. Judicial review on all matters concerning the Constitution can be gone into by the Supreme Court not because it is supreme but because the function is entrusted to it by the Constitution. I don't see any friction between the judiciary and the executive or Parliament. Even if there is friction, it shows a healthy democracy."

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