2007 (1) TMI 639 - SC - Indian Laws

Bench Judgement - cessation of membership of either House of Parliament - Powers of expulsion of a sitting member - Interpretation of Article 105 of Constitution of India - Whether in exercise of the powers, privileges and immunities as contained in Article 105, are the Houses of Parliament competent to expel their respective Members from membership of the House. If such a power exists, is it subject to judicial review and if so, the scope of such judicial review - distinction between British Parliament and the Indian Parliament - Doctrine Of Proportionality - Judicial Review - Members of Parliament (MPs) indulged in unethical and corrupt practices of taking monetary consideration in relation to their functions as MPs. Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J. - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that before stating that nobody would be spared, the Speaker had exhorted the members of the House to rise to the occasion and to see to it that such an event does not occur ever in future and commended that if anybody is guilty, he should be punished . It is clear that when he stated that no body 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 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 opposition rather goes to show that the resolve at that stage was to find the truth. The petitioners' case is that the procedures adopted by the Committees of the two Houses were neither reasonable nor fair. Further, they contend that the entire inquiry was improper and illegal inasmuch as rules of natural justice were flouted. In this context, the grievances of the petitioners are manifold. They would state that proper opportunity was not given to them to defend themselves; they were denied the opportunity of defending themselves through legal counsel or to give opportunity to explain; the request for supply of the material, in particular the un-edited versions of videography for testing the veracity of such evidence was turned down and doctored or morphed video-clippings were admitted into evidence, the entire procedure being unduly hurried. As already noted the scope of judicial review in these matters is restricted and limited. Regarding non-grant of reasonable opportunity, we reiterate what was recently held in Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2006 (12) TMI 514 - SUPREME COURT that the principles of natural justice are not immutable but are flexible; they cannot be cast in a rigid mould and put in a straitjacket and the compliance thereof has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. We out rightly reject the argument of denial of reasonable opportunity and also that proceedings were concluded in a hurry. It has become almost fashionable to raise the banner of Justice delayed is justice denied in case of protracted proceedings and to argue Justice hurried is justice buried if the results are quick. We cannot draw inferences from the amount of time taken by the Committees that inquired the matters as no specific time is or can be prescribed. Further such matters are required to be dealt with utmost expedition subject to grant of reasonable opportunity, which was granted to the petitioners. As has been pointed out by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Union of India, basing his submissions on the main report of the Inquiry Committee of Lok Sabha, the request for supply of full-footage of video recordings and audio tapes or extension of time or representation through counsel for such purposes did not find favour with the Inquiry Committee mainly because the Committee had offered to the concerned Members of Lok Sabha an opportunity to view the relevant video-footage that was available with the Committee and point out the discrepancies therein, if any, to the it. But, as is mentioned in the report copy of which has been made available by the Union of India to us, the petitioners themselves chose to turn down the said offer. The situation was almost similar to the one in Jagjit Singh's case 2006 (12) TMI 514 - SUPREME COURT . We agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for Union of India that the Inquiry Committee in the face of the refusal on the part of the concerned members was fully justified in not giving any credence to the objections that the video-clippings were doctored or morphed. The Committee in these circumstances could not be expected but to proceed to draw conclusions on the basis of the available material. The reports of the Inquiry Committee of Lok Sabha and the Committee on Ethics of Rajya Sabha indicate that both of the said Committees had called for explanations from each of the Members in question and had given due consideration to the same. The submissions of the learned Counsel for Union of India that the proceedings of the respective Committees were open to one and all, including these petitioners who actually participated in the proceedings could not be refuted. Therefore, it is not permissible to the petitioners to contend that evidence had been taken behind their back. The reports further show that the Committees had taken care not to proceed on the edited versions of the video recordings. Each of them insisted and procured the raw video-footage of the different sting operations and drew conclusions after viewing the same. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for Union of India, the evidence contained in the video recordings indicating demand or acceptance of money was further corroborated in two cases by the admissions made by the two Members of Rajya Sabha. Dr. Chhattrapal Singh Lodha had sought to attribute the receipt of money to a different transaction connected with some organization he was heading. But this explanation was not believed by the Committee on Ethics that unanimously found his complicity in unethical behavior on account of acceptance of money for tabling questions in Rajya Sabha. Dr. Swami Sakshiji Maharaj, on the other hand, went to the extent of expressing his regrets and displaying a feeling of shame for his conduct even before the Committee on Ethics. It is the contention of the petitioners that the evidence relied upon by the two Houses of Parliament does not inspire confidence and could not constitute a case of breach of privilege. Their argument is that the decision of expulsion is vitiated since it violated all sense of proportionality, fairness, legality, equality, justice or good conscience, and it being bad in law also because, as a consequence, the petitioners have suffered irreparable loss inasmuch as their image and prestige had been lowered in the eyes of the electorate. We are of the considered view that the impugned resolutions of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha cannot be questioned before us on the plea of proportionality. We are not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Legislative chambers with regard to the extent of punishment that deserved to be meted out in cases of this nature. That is a matter which must be left to the prerogative and sole discretion of the legislative body. All the more so because it is the latter which is the best Judge in exercise of its jurisdiction the object of which is self-protection. So long as the orders of expulsion are not illegal or unconstitutional, we are not concerned with the consequences for the petitioners on account of these expulsions. In these proceedings, this Court cannot not allow the truthfulness or correctness of the material to be questioned or permit the petitioners to go into the adequacy of the material or substitute its own opinion for that of the Legislature. Assuming some material on which the action is taken is found to be irrelevant, 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 contents whereof are reflected in the Inquiry reports and on which subject the petitioners have not raised any issue of fact. On perusal of the Inquiry reports, we find that there is no violation of any of the fundamental rights in general and Articles 14, 20 or 21 in particular. Proper opportunity to explain and defend having been given to each of the petitioners, the procedure adopted by the two Houses of Parliament cannot be held to be suffering from any illegality, irrationality, unconstitutionality, violation of rules of natural justice or perversity. It cannot be held that the petitioners were not given a fair deal. Before concluding, we place on record our appreciation for able assistance rendered by learned Counsel for the parties in the matter. Thus, we find no substance in the pleas of the petitioners. Resultantly, all the Petitions and Transferred Cases questioning the validity of the decisions of expulsion of the petitioners from the respective Houses of Parliament, being devoid of merits are dismissed. C.K. Thakker, J. - The basic and fundamental question raised by the petitioners in all these petitions is the power of Parliament to expel a member. Other incidental and ancillary questions center round the main question as to authority of a House of Legislature of expulsion from membership. If the sole object or paramount consideration of granting powers, privileges and immunities to the members of Legislature is to enable them to ensure that they perform their functions, exercise their rights and discharge their duties effectively, efficiently and without interference of outside agency or authority, it is difficult to digest that in case of abuse or misuse of such privilege by any member, no action can be taken by the Legislature, the parent body. Doctrine Of Proportionality - Once it is conceded that an action of suspension of a member can be taken (and it was expressly conceded), I fail to understand why in principle, an action of expulsion is impossible or illegal. In a given case, such action may or may not be lawful or called for, but in theory, it is not possible to hold that while the former is permissible, the latter is not. If it is made referable to representation of the constituency, then as observed in Raj Narain, withdrawal of a member from the House even for a brief period is a serious matter both for the member and his constituency. Important debates and votes may take place during his absence even if the period be brief and he may not be able to present his view-point or that of the group or that of the constituency he represented. It is, however, in the nature of disciplinary or punitive action for a specific parliamentary offence, namely, disorderly behavior. I have already held that the decisions taken, orders made, findings recorded or conclusions arrived at by Parliament/State Legislature are subject to judicial review, albeit on limited grounds and parameters. If, therefore, there is gross abuse of power by Parliament/ State Legislature, this Court will not hesitate in discharging its duty by quashing the order or setting aside unreasonable action. I am in whole-hearted agreement with the above observations. On my part, I may state that I am an optimist who has trust and faith in both these august units, namely, Legislature and Judiciary. By and large, constitutional functionaries in this country have admirably performed their functions, exercised their powers and discharged their duties effectively, efficiently and sincerely and there is no reason to doubt that in coming years also they would continue to act in a responsible manner expected of them. I am equally confident that not only all the constituents of the State will keep themselves within the domain of their authority and will not encroach, trespass or overstep the province of other organs but will also act in preserving, protecting and upholding the faith, confidence and trust reposed in them by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution and by the people of this great country by mutual regard, respect and dignity for each other. On the whole, the situation is satisfactory and I see no reason to be disappointed for future. With the above observations and pious hope, I dismiss the Writ Petition as also all transferred cases, however, without any order as to costs. R.V. Raveendran, J. - Distinction between British Parliament and the Indian Parliament - Constitution of India differs significantly from Constitutions of other countries. It was made in the background of historical, social and economic problems of this country. Our Constitution-makers forged solutions and incorporated them. They made exhaustive provisions relating to Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary with checks and balances. While making specific and detailed provisions regarding Parliament, the Constitution also earmarked the areas where further provisions could be made by the Parliament by law. On the other hand, the Constitution of England is unwritten and flexible. The distribution and regulation of exercise of governmental power has not been reduced to writing. Further British Parliament was, at one time, also the highest court of justice and because of it, regarded as a superior court of record, with all its attendant trappings. United States has a short and rigid Constitution, expounded considerably by courts. Indian Constitution is exhaustive and sufficiently expounded by the Constitution makers themselves. In fact, with 395 Articles and 12 Schedules, it is the longest among world's Constitutions. The Constitution-makers have made detailed and specific provisions regarding the manner in which a person becomes a Member of Parliament (elected/nominated), the duration for which he continues as a member and the manner in which he ceases to be a member and his seat becomes vacant. Therefore neither the question of election or nomination, nor tenure, nor cessation/termination of membership of the House covered by the express provisions in the Constitution, can fall under 'other powers, privileges and immunities' of the House mentioned in Article 105(3). Conclusion - We have also noticed above that the Constitution makes express provisions for election/appointment and removal/cessation of service of the Executive (President and Vice-President), Judiciary (Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court) and all other constitutional functionaries (Attorney General, Auditor and Comptroller General, Chief Election Commissioner etc.). It is therefore inconceivable that the Constitution-makers would have omitted to provide for 'expulsion' as one of the methods of cessation of membership or consequential vacancy, if it intended to entrust such power to the Parliament. In view of the express provisions in the Constitution, as to when a person gets disqualified to be a member of either House of Parliament (and thereby ceases to be a member) and when a consequential vacancy arises, it is impermissible to read a new category of cessation of membership by way of expulsion and consequential vacancy, by resorting to the incidental powers, privileges and immunities referred to in Article 105. Clause (3) of Article 105 opens with the words 'in other respects'. The provision for 'powers, privileges and immunities' in Clause (3) occurs after referring to the main privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament, in Clause (1) of Article 105, and the main immunity against court proceedings in Clause (2) of Article 105. Therefore, Clause (3) is intended to provide for 'non-main' or 'incidental' or miscellaneous powers, privileges and immunities which are numerous to mention. Two things are clear from Clause (3). It is not intended to provide for the matters relating to nomination/election, term of office, qualifications, disqualification/cessation, for which express provisions are already made in Articles 80, 81, 83, 84, 101 and 102. Nor is it intended to provide for important privilege of freedom of speech or important immunity from court proceedings referred to in Clause (1) and (2) of Article 105. I am, therefore, of the considered view that there is no power of expulsion in the Parliament, either inherent or traceable to Article 105(3). Expulsion by the House will be possible only if Article 102 or Article 101 is suitably amended or if a law is made under Article 102(1)(e) enabling the House to expel a member found unworthy or unfit of continuing as a member. The first question is thus answered in the affirmative. Therefore the second question does not survive for consideration. Thus, I hold that the action of the two Houses of Parliament, expelling the petitioners is violative of Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution and therefore invalid. Petitioners, therefore, continue to be Members of Parliament (subject to any action for cessation of their membership). Petitions and transferred cases disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Articles 101 and 102 are exhaustive regarding the modes of cessation of membership of Parliament.
2. Whether Parliament has the power to expel its members as part of its powers, privileges, and immunities under Article 105(3).

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Exhaustiveness of Articles 101 and 102
Majority View:
- Constitutional Provisions: Articles 101 and 102, along with the Representation of People Act, 1951, provide exhaustive grounds for disqualification and cessation of membership.
- Express Provisions: The Constitution makes detailed provisions for the election, tenure, and cessation of membership of Parliament, leaving no room for additional grounds like expulsion.
- Judicial Interpretation: The Constitution's express provisions cannot be overridden by implied powers under Article 105(3). The power to expel members is not incidental but a significant power that should have been explicitly mentioned if intended.

Minority View (R.V. Raveendran, J.):
- Constitutional Framework: The Constitution provides specific grounds for disqualification and cessation of membership, and expulsion is not one of them.
- Legislative Intent: The Constitution-makers did not intend to include expulsion as a mode of cessation of membership, as evidenced by the detailed provisions in Articles 101 and 102.
- Judicial Precedents: The principle that express provisions in the Constitution cannot be supplemented by implied powers under Article 105(3) is well-established.

Issue 2: Power of Expulsion under Article 105(3)
Majority View:
- Historical Context: The power of expulsion in the British Parliament is rooted in its historical context and is not automatically applicable to the Indian Parliament.
- Constitutional Interpretation: Article 105(3) provides for incidental powers, privileges, and immunities necessary for the functioning of Parliament but does not extend to significant powers like expulsion.
- Judicial Review: The power of expulsion, if exercised, is subject to judicial review to ensure it does not violate constitutional provisions.

Minority View (R.V. Raveendran, J.):
- Inherent Power: Parliament does not have an inherent power of expulsion. Such power must be explicitly provided for in the Constitution or through a law made under Article 102(1)(e).
- Judicial Oversight: Any action of expulsion by Parliament is subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure it aligns with constitutional provisions.

Conclusion:
- Majority Decision: The power to expel members is not inherent in Parliament under Article 105(3) and must be explicitly provided for in the Constitution or through a law made under Article 102(1)(e).
- Minority Decision (R.V. Raveendran, J.): The action of expulsion by Parliament is invalid as it violates Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution. The petitioners continue to be members of Parliament, subject to any lawful action for cessation of their membership.

Final Judgment:
- Majority: The petitions and transferred cases questioning the validity of the expulsion decisions are dismissed.
- Minority (R.V. Raveendran, J.): The expulsion is invalid, and the petitioners continue to be members of Parliament.