Facts of the case

On 12.12.2005, a TV News Channel - Aaj Tak showed some video-footage of some persons,
alleged to be members of Parliament accepting money for tabling questions or raising issues
in the House, under the caption 'operation Duryodhana' ("Cash for Questions"). On the same
day when the House met, the Hon'ble Speaker requested to the members of house to not
attend the session untill the matter is solved and make an enquiry committee consisting of
five Parliamentarians and the concerned members will submit their statements regarding the
allegations made against
The Committee is requested to give its Report on 21st December, 2005. The Committee is
authorized to follow its own procedure. The Report will be presented before the House for its
consideration.
After considering the material, the committee submitted its report. The Committee was of the
view that in the case of misconduct by the members or contempt of the House by the
members, the House can impose any of the following punishments : (i) admonition; (ii)
reprimand; (iii) withdrawal from the House; (iv) suspension from the House; (v)
imprisonment; and (vi) expulsion from the House. The Committee concluded that
continuance of the ten persons as members of Lok Sabha was untenable and recommended
their expulsion.
On 23.12.2005, the Leader of the House moved the following Motion in the House against
Shri Narendra Kumar Kushawaha, Shri Annasaheb M. K. Patil, Shri Manoj Kumar, Shri Y.
G. Mahajan, Shri Pradeep Gandhi, Shri Suresh Chandel, Shri Ramsevak Singh, Shri Lal
Chandra Kol, Shri Rajaram Pal and Shri Chandra Pratap Singh.
After a debate, the Motion was adopted by voice vote. As a consequence on the same day, a
notification by the Lok Sabha Secretariat was issued notifying that 'consequent on the
adoption of a Motion by the Lok Sabha on the 23rd December, 2005 expelling the ten
members from the membership of the Lok Sabha', the ten members ceased to be members of
the Lok Sabha, with effect from the 23rd December, 2005 (afternoon).'
Similar are the facts relating to Dr. Chhattrapal Singh Lodha, Member of Rajya Sabha. On
12.12.2005, Ethics Committee held a meeting and took the view that the member had prima
facie contravened Part V of the Code of Conduct which provided :

"Members should never expect or accept any fee, remuneration or benefit for a vote given or
not given by them on the floor of the House, for introducing a Bill, for moving a resolution or
desisting from moving a resolution, putting a question or abstaining from asking a question
or participating in the deliberations of the house or a Parliamentary Committee."
The Committee recommended Dr. Lodha to be expelled from the membership of the House.
On 23.12.2005, the Chairman of the Ethics Committee moved that its final report be
accepted. After debate, the House agreed with the recommendation in the report by voice
vote. As a consequence, the Secretary General of Rajya Sabha issued a notification dated
23.12.2005 declaring that Dr. Lodha had ceased to be a member of the Rajya Sabha with
effect from that date.

Issues
1) Whether the writ petition is maintainable or not?
2) Whether parliament has a right of expulsion of its members?
3) Whether Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to decide the content and scope of powers,
privileges and immunities of the legislatures and its members?

1)
Rights which are essential or fundamental for the well-being of a person are called
fundamental rights. The fundamental right in India enshrined in the part 3 of the constitution of
India.
This is humbly submitted before the hon'ble Supreme Court of India that writ petition is not
maintainable because there no right is being violated under Art. 19(1)(a).
19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) To freedom of speech and expression.
The petitioners contented that they were asking questions on the particular matter in the
parliament. This is right given by the constitution as being elected as the Member of Parliament.
They were expelled from House because of raising question.
Counsel humbly submits that the there is no infringement of any right of the petitioner

2)
Parliament is legislature and one of the three organs of state which is responsible for making
laws. For its smooth working it have certain privileges, powers and immunities under art. 105
of Indian Constitution.
'Power' means 'the ability to do something or to act in a particular way'. It is a right conferred
upon a person by the law to alter, by his own will directed to that end; the rights, duties,
liabilities or other legal relations either of himself or of other persons. It is a comprehensive word
which includes procedural and substantive rights which can be exercised by a person or an
authority.
'Privilege' is a special right, advantage or benefit conferred on a particular person. It is a peculiar
advantage or favor granted to one person as against another to do certain acts. Inherent in the
term is the idea of something, apart and distinct from a common right which is enjoyed by all
persons and connotes some sort of special grant by the sovereign.
'Immunity' is an exemption or freedom from general obligation, duty, burden or penalty.
Exemption from appearance before a court of law or other authority, freedom from prosecution,
protection from punishment, etc. are immunities granted to certain persons or office bearers.

Art. 105 of Indian Constitution-

Powers, privileges, etc of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees
thereof
(1) Subject to the provisions of this constitution and the rules and standing orders regulating
the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament
(2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of
anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person
shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of
Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings
(3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and
of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be
defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined shall be those of that House and of its
members and committees immediately before the coming into force of Section 15 of the
Constitution (Forty fourth Amendment) Act 1978
(4) The provisions of clauses ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) shall apply in relation to persons who by
virtue of this constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings
of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of
Parliament.
These powers are Law making powers, Financial Powers, Control over the Executive, Amending
Power, Judicial Functions and others. Within its judicial powers the parliament can remove
executives, judges of Supreme Court and suspend or expel its members.
In the present case, an enquiry committee was formed for enquiring the allegations against 10
members of Lok Sabha for accepting money for tabling questions or raising issues in the House.
The committee submitted its report. The said report contained the following findings:
a) Money was accepted by the members directly or through their Secretaries/Assistants to
raise question in Loksabha. Acceptance of money by the ten members was thus established.
b) The plea put forth by the ten members that the video footages were morphed/manipulated
has no merit. Their conduct was unbecoming of members of Parliament, unethical and called
for strict action.
c) Stern action also needs to be taken against the middlemen, touts and persons masquerading
as Private Secretaries of members since they are primarily responsible for inducting members
of Parliament into such activities.
The Committee was of the view that in the case of misconduct by the members or contempt
of the House by the members, the House can impose any of the following punishments : (i)
admonition; (ii) reprimand; (iii) withdrawal from the House; (iv) suspension from the House;
(v) imprisonment; and (vi) expulsion from the House. The Committee concluded that
continuance of the ten persons as members of Lok Sabha was untenable and recommended
their expulsion.
On the recommendation of the enquiry committee hon'ble speaker pass motion on the voice
vote and thus the members of loksabha were expel from the house. The concern members by

accepting money to raise question make a very dangerous situation for all democratic process
and if not such punishment was awarded to them then it will lead to other members of
parliament to this unethical work.
On the issue that the houses does not possess the power of expel its members because
constitution itself does not provide them. The constitution of India provides this power in Art.
105(3) that in other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament,
and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time
be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined shall be those of that House and of its
members and committees immediately before the coming into force of Section 15 of the
Constitution (Forty fourth Amendment) Act 1978. In clause (3) of Articles 105 has replaced the
earlier words "shall be those of the House of Commons of Parliament of the United Kingdom,
and of its members and Committees, at the commencement of the Constitution". The position
even after amendment is the same as the position that existed at the commencement of the
Constitution.
In the year 1976, Rajya Sabha expels one of its members. Shri Subramanian Swami was expels
on the recommendation of the committee made by the hon'ble speaker for examine his activities.
Committee after wards gave his report to the Hon'ble speaker of Rajya Sabha which contains that
Mr. swami was outside the territory of India and in the meantime someone was sign on his behalf
that he attend the session. So, the committee's recommendation that to expel Mr. Swami from the
house. After that a motion was again introduced in Rajya Sabha of expulsion and by the adoption
of a Motion by the house on 15th November, 1976, expelling from the Rajya Sabha Shri
Subramanian Swamy, a member elected to the Rajya Sabha from Uttar Pradesh, Shri Swamy has
ceased to be a member of the Rajya Sabha.
In another case, Star News through a sting operation done with Detective
Intelligence Group - showed six MPS soliciting commissions while allotting
funds under the MPLADS for developmental works in their respective A sting
operation was
constituencies.
done in which
The seven MPS caught with their hands in the till are: former Union minister
six MP,s were
Faggan Singh Kulaste, BJP MP from Mandla in Madhya Pradesh, former Goa expel from
chief minister Churchill Alemao, Congress MP from South Goa, Paras Nath house.
Yadav, Samajwadi Party MP from Jaunpur, Chandra Pratap Singh, BJP MP from
Sidhi in Madhya Pradesh, Ram Swaroop Koli, BJP MP from Bayana in Rajasthan
and two members of the Rajya Sabha, BJP's Chhatrapal Singh Lodha and
Samajwadi Party's Sakshi Maharaj.
In American law, so far as the United States of America is concerned, the Constitution itself
recognizes such right. Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States confers such
right on each House of the Legislature. Sub-section (2) reads thus;
" Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly
behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

Cooley in his well-known work 'Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations', (1972 Edn., p. 133);
states; Each House has also the power to punish members for disorderly behaviour, and other
contempts of its authority, and also to expel a member for any cause which seems to the body to
render it unfit that he continue to occupy one of its seats. This power is sometimes conferred by
the constitution, but it exists whether expressly conferred or not. It is a necessary and incidental
power, to enable the house to perform its high functions and is necessary to the safety of the
State. It is a power of protection. A member may be physically, mentally, or morally wholly
unfit; he may be affected with a contagious disease, or insane, or noisy, violent and disorderly, or
in the habit of using profane, obscene, and abusive language. And independently of
parliamentary customs and usages, our legislative houses have the power to protect themselves
by the punishment and expulsion of a member and the Courts cannot inquire into the justice of
the decision, or look into the proceedings to see whether opportunity for defence was furnished
or not."
In Australian law, the provisions relating Parliamentary privileges under the Constitution of
Australia were similar to our Constitution. Section 49 declared powers, privileges and
immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives and its Members.
"The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and
of the Members and the Committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the
Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United
Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth."
At common law, the House of Commons is recognized to have power to expel a member for
misconduct unfitting him for membership even where that misconduct is not such as to
disqualify him from parliamentary office. There is no doubt that Australian Houses of Parliament
invested by statute with the powers and privileges of the House of Commons enjoy the same
power. At common law, Colonial Legislatures do not possess punitive powers, though there is
dictum in Barton v. Taylor to the effect that they do have power to expel for aggravated or
persistent misconduct on the ground that this may be necessary for the self protection of the
legislature. Where a member is expelled, his seat thereupon becomes vacant. He is not, however,
disqualified from being again elected and returned to parliament".
In Yeshwant Rao Meghawale v. Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Ors., AIR 1967 MP
95, the petitioner obstructed the proceedings in the House, jumped on the platform and assaulted
the Deputy Speaker. A motion of expulsion of the petitioner was moved and was passed. The
petitioner challenged the action by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
The Court observed that though Indian Legislature has no right to provide neither for its own
composition nor for filling of vacancies in the House, nor to try election disputes, nevertheless it

has power to expel a member for proper functioning, protection and self-preservation. The Court
noted that as held by the Privy Council, even Colonial Legislatures have such power.

In Hardwari Lal v. Election Commission of India, ILR (1977) 2 P & H 269 (FB).
The learned Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court on the issue that a State Legislature
has power to expel its member considered the scope and applicability of clause (3) of Article 194
[similar to clause (3) of Article 105] of the Constitution and held that Indian Legislature had no
privilege to provide for its own composition, but it is no ground to deny the right to the House to
expel a member as a means of punishment for misconduct. Referring to a series of cases, it was
held that "independent of the power and privilege of the House of Commons to constitute itself it
did have and exercised at the time of coming into force of our Constitution the power to expel its
members by way of punishment for misconduct or for breach of privilege or for committing
contempt of the House."
In K.Anbazhagan and Others V. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and Others AIR 1988
MADRAS 275, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly expelled certain members for having burnt
a part of Constitution in the public and it was put to challenge by 10 Members belonging to a
particular political party. The elemental question, which arose for consideration in that writ
petition, was whether the State Legislature have the power to expel a Member of the Assembly.
A Division Bench of this Court held that the Indian Legislature could exercise the power of
expulsion in a case in which, it thinks fit to exercise its power for conduct of a Member, who is
considered unworthy.
(2010) 6 SCC 113 (Amarinder Singh v. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha) the power of
the State Legislature, privilege and immunities conferred under Article 194 of the Constitution of
India, which are similar to those conferred on Union Parliament by Article 105 came up for
consideration. The power of a legislative chamber to punish for its own contempt should broadly
coincide with the legislature's interest in protecting the integrity of its functions. There can of
course be some exceptional circumstances where acts that take place outside the `four walls of
the house' could have the effect of distorting, obstructing or diluting the integrity of legislative
functions.
V.C.Chandhira Kumar vs Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 21 October, 2013
The power of expulsion apart from being a part of the power of the House of Commons to
regulate its own composition, was essentially a power which was in the nature of exercising a
disciplinary control over the membership of the House with a view to see that such of the
members who are unfit in the opinion of the House to continue to be its members, could be

expelled from membership. What is important is not that the power of expulsion so exercised
was a part of the powers of the House of Commons to regulate its composition but that the power
of expulsion was in fact exercised by the House of Commons also as a part of the power to
punish a member by expelling him.
The power of expulsion is not inconsistent with any other provisions of the Constitution of India.
Such power cannot be negatived on the ground that an elected member was entitled to continue
as a member for a period of five years or that a particular constituency may go unrepresented
because of the expulsion of the elected representative.

3)
Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a
decision or action made by a public body. In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the
way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion
reached.
The parliament of India has immune to judicial review. It is very necessary for the proper
working of the parliament that each house is able to discharge its function without any outside
interference. The house has an exclusive right to regulate its own internal proceedings and to
adjudicate upon matters arising there. It enjoys the complete autonomy within own boundaries.
"What is said or done within the walls of parliament cannot be enquired into a court of law."
In India, this parliamentary privilege govern by the Art 122 of Indian Constitution,
122. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament.-

(1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of
any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution
for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall
be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.

There are two maxims or principles which govern this subject. The first is that "Privilege of
Parliament is part of the law of the land;" the second that "Each House is the judge of its own
privileges." Now at first sight it may seem that these maxims are contradictory. If privilege of
Parliament is part of the law of the land its meaning and extent must be interpreted by the courts,
just like any other part of the law; and therefore neither House can add to its privileges by its
own resolution, any more than it can add to any other part of the law by such a resolution. On the
other hand if it is true that each House is the sole judge of its own privileges, it might seem that
each House was the sole judge as to whether or no it had got a privilege, and so could add to its
privileges by its own resolution. This apparent contradiction is solved if the proper application of
these two maxims is attended to.