Raja Ram Pal v Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha
Rule established
Article 105(3) carries an inherent power in each House to punish for contempt, including by expulsion of a member. The exercise of that power is subject to judicial review, but only on limited grounds. Article 122 excludes review for irregularity of procedure, not for substantive illegality.
Facts
- A television investigation showed a number of members of Parliament accepting money in return for tabling questions in the House.
- The House of the People appointed an inquiry committee, and the Council of States referred the matter to its Committee on Ethics.
- The committees found the allegations substantiated in respect of eleven members, ten of the House of the People and one of the Council of States.
- Both Houses passed resolutions expelling the members concerned.
- The expelled members petitioned the Supreme Court under Art.32.
- They contended that the Constitution provides expressly for vacation of seats in Arts.101 to 104 and does not confer any power of expulsion, and that Art.105(3) could not be read as supplying one.
Issue
- Whether Parliament has power to expel a member for contempt; and if so, how far the exercise of that power is open to judicial review having regard to Art.122.
Held
- The power exists and the expulsions were upheld. Article 105(3) preserves the privileges of the House, which historically included the power to punish for contempt and to remove a member whose continued presence was inconsistent with the dignity of the House; expulsion is a species of that power and is not excluded merely because Arts.101 to 104 deal separately with disqualification and vacation of seats. The Court held that its own jurisdiction was not ousted: Art.122 bars examination of proceedings for irregularity of procedure, but not where there is an illegality or unconstitutionality. Review is available on the grounds of want of jurisdiction, violation of a constitutional provision or fundamental right, gross illegality, mala fides, or violation of natural justice, but the Court will not enter upon the merits or reappreciate evidence. On the facts, the procedure was found adequate. Raveendran J differed on the width of the reviewing jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
Parliament is not a body of enumerated powers in the matter of its own privileges; Art.105(3) preserves a historic body of privilege which includes self protection through contempt jurisdiction. But no organ acting under the Constitution can be wholly beyond it. The correct reconciliation is to read Art.122 according to its terms, which speak of irregularity of procedure, so that the House is master of its own procedure while remaining bound by constitutional limits. The Court's role is thus supervisory as to jurisdiction and legality, and not appellate as to findings.
How to use it in an exam
- The leading modern authority on the width of Art.105(3) and the correspondingly narrow reading of Art.122.
- Memorise the five grounds of review, since they are frequently asked as a list: want of jurisdiction, violation of a fundamental right or constitutional provision, gross illegality, mala fides, and breach of natural justice.
- The essential distinction to state is between irregularity of procedure, which Art.122 protects, and substantive illegality, which it does not.
- Use it in any problem where a member is expelled or punished without a hearing, since denial of natural justice is the ground most likely to succeed.
- Read with Special Reference No 1 of 1964, which established that the existence of a privilege is justiciable, and with Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu 1992, which applied a similar limited review to the Speaker's decisions under the Tenth Schedule.
- Contrast Mohd Saeed Siddiqui v State of UP 2014, which read Art.212 more broadly in relation to Money Bills, and note that the tension between the two approaches is precisely what Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank 2020 referred to a larger Bench.
Source
Source: (2007) 3 SCC 184; AIR 2007 SC 1305; Constitution Bench of five Judges, Raveendran J differing on the extent of review; leading modern authority on Art.105(3) and Art.122; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.