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 dias 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.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the House of Commons has the right to provide
for its own constitution and power to fill vacancies. And it was because of that power that it
could expel a member. Since the Legislative Assembly of M.P. had no such right, it could not
expel a member.

The Court, however, negatived the contention. It observed that though Indian Legislature has no
right to provide 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.

This, in my opinion, is based on the doctrine that there cannot be two parallel courts, i.e. Crown's
Court and also a Court of Parliament ('the High Court of Parliament') exercising judicial power
in respect of one and the same jurisdiction. India is a democratic and republican State having a
written Constitution which is supreme and no organ of the State (Legislature, Executive or
Judiciary) can claim sovereignty or supremacy over the other. Under the said Constitution,
power of judicial review has been conferred on higher judiciary (Supreme Court and High
Courts). The said power is held to be one of the 'basic features' of the Constitution and, as such,
it cannot be taken away by Parliament, even by an amendment in the Constitution. [Vide
Sambamurthy v. State of A.P., (1987) 1 SCC 362 : AIR 1987 SC 663; Kesavananda Bharti v.
State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 : AIR 1973 SC 1461; Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain,
1975 Supp SCC 1 : AIR 1975 SC 2299; Minerva Mills Ltd. V. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC
625 : AIR 1980 SC 1789; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124 : (1987) 1
SCC 124 : (1987) 1 SCR 435, Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 : AIR 1993
SC 412]. It has, therefore, been held in several cases that an action of Parliament/State
Legislature cannot claim 'total immunity' from judicial review. In fact, this argument had been
put forward in Keshav Singh which was negatived by this Court.