What the Supreme Court said
In a landmark judgement in 2007, the top court dismissed the petitions challenging the expulsions calling the move a ‘self-protection exercise’ by the Parliament. A five-judge constitution bench led by the then Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal upheld the expulsion with a 4-1 majority verdict.
The court had ruled that it would “not interfere so long as there is some relevant material sustaining the action (of Parliament)”.
However, the court also noted that the actions of the Parliament were under judicial review. At the same time, the court had also said that judicial review did not mean that the jurisdiction of the legislature was being usurped by the court.
“The Judicature is not prevented from scrutinising the validity of the action of the legislature trespassing on the fundamental rights conferred on the citizens… the judicial review of the manner of exercise of power of contempt or privilege does not mean the said jurisdiction is being usurped by the judicature,” the court had ruled.
The landmark ruling had paved the way to judge the extent and scope of uncodified parliamentary privileges under Article 105.
Article 105 of the Constitution deals with “powers, privileges, etc of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof.” This is the provision that gives MPs immunity from legal action for any statement made, or act done in the course of their duties.
SC in its 2007 ruling had denied the concept of ‘absolute immunity’ saying, “there is no basis to claim… absolute immunity to the Parliamentary proceedings in Article 105(3) of the Constitution.”
Ananya Das is your guide to the latest trends, viral sensations, and internet phenomena. Based on a keen understanding of digital culture, Sophie navigates the ever-evolving landscape of trending topics. With an insightful and engaging approach, she explores what’s buzzing across social media platforms, ensuring readers stay in the loop with the most talked-about and shareable content online.
