New Delhi: Recognising the supremacy of Parliament to expel a member for misconduct, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the termination of the membership of 11 MPs in December 2005 for their involvement in the cash-for-query scam.

They are Raja Ram Pal, Suresh Chandel, Pradeep Gandhi, Yeshwant Giridhar Mahajan, Anna Saheb M.K. Patil, Chandra P. Singh, Manoj Kumar, Narendra Kumar Kushwaha, Ram Sewak Singh, Lal Chandra Kol (all Lok Sabha) and Chatrapal Singh Lodha (Rajya Sabha).

MPLADS scam

The court also upheld the expulsion of Swami Sakshi Ji Maharaj, another Rajya Sabha member, involved in an MPLADS (Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme) scam.

A five-judge Constitution Bench, by a majority of 4:1 in its over 600-page verdict, said: "On a perusal of the inquiry reports, we find that there is no violation of any of the fundamental rights [of the petitioners] in general and Articles 14 [equality before law], 20 [protection in respect of conviction for offences] or 21 [protection of life and personal liberty] in particular."

While Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice D.K. Jain gave the majority judgment, Justice C.K. Thakker agreed with the findings of Mr. Justice Sabharwal but gave a different reasoning. Justice R.V. Raveendran, in his dissenting judgment, held that Parliament had no power to terminate the membership of an MP.

Writing the main 357-page judgment, Mr. Justice Sabharwal said the powers and privileges of Parliament under Article 105 included the power of expulsion.

"Parliament is empowered to define, by law, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House and of its members and committees in respects other than those specified in the constitutional provisions."

The Bench rejected the contentions that the termination of membership could be effected only as laid down under Articles 101 and 102. "Expulsion is only an additional cause for the shortening of the term of a member. While Articles 101 and 102 do speak of disqualifications for and continuation of membership, in our view they operate independently of Article 105 (3), which is also a constitutional provision, and it demands equal weight as any other provision. Parliament's power to expel under Article 105 (3) does by no means amount to adding a new ground for disqualification."

Parliament "could use its power for protective purposes not only for acts done within the House but also upon anything that lowers the dignity of the House."

No violation of natural justice

Dismissing the petitions, the Bench said, "Proper opportunity to explain and defend having been given to each of the petitioners, the procedure adopted by the two Houses cannot be held to be suffering from any illegality, irrationality, unconstitutionality, violation of rules of natural justice or perversity."

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