The Speaker of Lok Sabha expelled 20 members for receiving money for raising questions in the house on behalf of vested interests. They challenged the expulsion before the Supreme Court. Decide.

Facts of the Case

The Speaker of the Lok Sabha expelled 20 members for allegedly receiving money to raise questions in the House on behalf of vested interests. The expelled members challenged the Speaker’s decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that their expulsion violated constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether the Speaker of Lok Sabha has the authority to expel members for misconduct under the Constitution.
2. Whether the expelled members are entitled to judicial review of the Speaker’s action.
3. Whether principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 are applicable in the context of expulsion from Parliament.

Legal Principles Covered

A. Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 105 – Powers, Privileges, and Immunities of Parliament and its Members
   • Members of Parliament enjoy freedom of speech in the House.
   • Parliament has the power to regulate its internal proceedings and discipline members.
   • Speaker has authority to maintain decorum and order.
2. Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 (Indirectly)
   • Expelled members may claim freedom of expression and protection against arbitrary action, though parliamentary privileges may override in-house discipline.

B. Judicial Principles

1. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) 1 SCC 309
   • Speaker’s decisions under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) are subject to judicial review only on questions of jurisdiction and mala fide intent, not on merits.
   • Principle extended to parliamentary disciplinary actions: Courts may review for procedural compliance or jurisdiction, but not substitute their discretion.
2. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1
   • Courts emphasized that disciplinary actions must follow natural justice, but internal parliamentary proceedings have protected autonomy.
3. P. D. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987) 2 SCC 117
   • Legislative bodies have primary authority over internal discipline, subject to jurisdictional and procedural fairness review by courts.

C. Principles of Judicial Review

• Scope:
  • Courts can intervene if:
    1. Speaker acts without jurisdiction.
    2. There is mala fide exercise of power.
    3. Principles of natural justice are violated.
• Limitation:
  • Courts cannot re-examine the merits of internal parliamentary disciplinary action.

Possible Judgement / Legal Advice

1. Validity of Speaker’s Action
   • The Speaker has the authority to expel members for misconduct under Article 105.
   • If the expulsion followed proper procedure and members were given opportunity to explain, it is likely to be upheld.
2. Scope of Judicial Intervention
   • Supreme Court may review only for:
     • Jurisdictional errors
     • Violation of natural justice (e.g., not giving notice or opportunity to be heard)
   • If procedure was followed, court will not interfere.
3. Advisory Conclusion
   • Expulsion is constitutionally valid if:
     • Proper notice was issued.
     • Members were allowed to respond to charges.
     • Speaker acted within authority and in good faith.
   • Courts will not substitute their own judgment for the Speaker’s discretion unless there is clear violation of law or mala fide action.

About lawgnan

Curious about the Speaker’s authority to expel Members of Parliament for misconduct? Understand how Article 105 empowers Parliament to maintain internal discipline while balancing the principles of natural justice. At Lawgnan.in, our legal experts explain the scope of judicial review, Speaker’s jurisdiction, and key rulings like Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India. Explore how courts examine procedural fairness, mala fide actions, and jurisdictional limits without interfering in legislative autonomy. Visit Lawgnan.in today for detailed legal insights on parliamentary privileges and constitutional accountability.