You are on page 1of 19

cccccccccc

In the Honorable High Court of Delhi

At New Delhi, India

c
c
6rit Petition No: ****/ 2010
c
In the Matter of

Mr. Manohar««««««...«««««..... Petitioner


cc
c
c
c
c
Hon¶ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors«......... Respondent

c
c
0  c 
 c c c
 c c c
c
c
c
c
c c
c
c
c
c   cc cc c0  c
c
M0c0c  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$ cM!$$%c&'('c
c

cccccccccccccccccc
cccccccccccccc

$"#!cc$!$ c
c
(c )!*cc"$0$! & c+
c
cccccca) Acts/ Statutes........................................................................................... 2
b) Books....................................................................................................... 2
c) Internet Sources........................................................................................ 2
d) List of Cases............................................................................................. 3

&c $"$!!$cc,0 )$ c-

mc .M  cc"$ c/

+c  ! c0" !)c1

-c "0.cc"0 !$  c2

/c ).cc"0 !$  '3c(1

a) The Present court has no jurisdiction in this matter...................................................09

b) This House of the Parliament has the power of expulsion......................................... 11

c) The act of Petitioner amounts to breach of privilege and contempt of House........... 14

d) The expulsion of the petitioner is Constitutional....................................................... 16

1cM c c(2cc

M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

c
)!*cc"$0$! c
cccccccccccccccc

ccccc"$ 4 $"$$! 5c

c CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

c RULES OF PROCEDURE and CONDUCT OF BUSINESS in LOK SABHA


c

65c

c AIN M.P., INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LA6, GURGAON, LEXIS NEXIS


BUTTER6ORTHS 6ADH6A NAGPUR, 2010, SIXTH EDITION

c MASSEY I.P., ADMINISTRATIVE LA6, LUCKNO6, EASTERN BOOK


COMPANY, 2008, SEVENTH EDITION

c SHUKLA V.N., CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LUCKNO6, EASTERN BOOK


CORPORATION, 2008, ELEVENTH EDITION.

c KASHYAP SUBHASH, OUR PARLIAMENT, NE6 DELHI, NATIONAL BOOK


TRUST, REPRINT 2004 EDITION.

$!0!$c $! 5c

c 222   


c www.loksabha.nic.in
c www.manupatra.com
c 222  2 

M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

cccc
# $ cc" ! c

1.c Barton v. Taylor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13


(1886)11.App.cases197

2.c Bradlaugh v. Gosset---------------------------------------------------------------------------09


1884 12 QBD 271

3.c K.Anbashagan v. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly------------------------------------12


A.I.R 1988 Mad 275

4.c Keshwanand Bharti V. State of Kerala----------------------------------------------------10


A.I.R 1973 SC 1461

5.c MSM Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha-------------------------------------------------------09


(1961) 1 SCR 96

6.c MSM Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha----------------------------------------------------16, 17


A.I.R 1960 SC 1186

7.c Raja Ram Pal v. Hon¶ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Ors------------------------------12 , 17
(2007) 3 SCC 184

8.c Raj Narain v. Atmaram Govinda------------------------------------------------------------ 10


A.I.R 1954 All 319

M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

9.c Richard 6illiam Prebble v. Television New Zealand-------------------------------------09


1994 (S) 6LR 970

10.cIn Re UP Assembly Case, Special Ref.No.1of 1964---------------------------------------10


(1965) 1 SCR 413

11.cYeswant Rao v. M.P.Legislative Assembly----------------------------------12


A.I.R 1967 MP 95

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

ccccccccccccccccccccccc

$"$!!$cc,0 )$c

The Petitioner in the present case has approached the Hon¶ble High Court of Delhi under
Article 226 of the Indian constitution

The Respondent respectfully submits to this jurisdiction invoked by the Petitioner.

u 
   
      
  
 



c
M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

c
$"$!!$cc"$ c

cc

Mr. Manohar further referred to as Petitioner was elected as the member of the 14th Lok
Sabha from the Sunder Nagar Parliamentary Constituency after defeating Mr. Ramu. Before
this petitioner was Chairperson of Sunder Nagar Municipal Corporation. Mr. Ramu, lodged a
complaint that as Chairperson of the municipal corporation, petitioner has amassed assets
disproportionate to his known sources of Income. He complaint about this to the Hon¶ble
Speaker of the Lok Sabha & also reported this to conduct an investigation against Petitioner.

Then Mr. Bahadur, a voter of petitioner¶s constituency also complained to the speaker that
the Petitioner had taken large sum of money for raising certain questions in the house.
Mr. Samu, the third person also alleged that petitioner has taken money for voting against
confidence motion. Hon¶ble Speaker referred all these complaints to the Privilege committee
of the house for investigation. Committee found Petitioner guilty of all the three counts and
after due research into the matter recommended for his expulsion from the house. After such
recommendation Hon¶ble Speaker issued notice to the petitioner, and call him to hears for his
defence, and then taken a decision to expel him from the house.

Feeling aggrieved by such decision, Petitioner had filled this petition in the Hon¶ble Delhi
High Court, claiming his expulsion as unconstitutional.

M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

cccccccccccc
 ! c0" !)c
c
c

c
7c 6!$!0c$!c0$ c"8!c$!c,0 )$c$c$!0!0!c
c$!c!*!0 !ccM6!0c0cM08#! !c!00!)cc$!c
M"0#"!$9c
c
c
c
7c 6!$!0c$!c !cc$!cM"0#"!$c" c$!cM6!0cc
!*M# c0c$9c
c

7c 6!$!0c$!c"$cc$!cM!$$!0c"$ c$c0!"c


cM08#! !c0c$!M$cc !c0c$9c

87c 6!$!0c$!c!*M# cc$!cM!$$!0c c


 $$$"#c0c$9c

c
c

c
M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

c
"0.cc"0 !$ c
c
c

c
7c $ cM  cccc:   c c c  c:

It is humbly submitted that the present court has no power to review the act of the
house in question as the expulsion of the member is a part of Parliamentary
Privileges. Doing so will be violation of constitutional provisions.

7c $ c cc cM  cc c; cc < c5cc

Indian Parliament is the epitome of democracy in India. 6ith a view to protect


and upgrade it dignity and prestige, the parliament can punish for its contempt,
which indeed includes the power of expulsion as well.

7c $ c c c M    c  c c


 c c  =   c  c  c c
 >

It is submitted that it is the duty of the members of the parliament to present the
view of people before the house. If the same is done by taking bribe it indeed
amounts to breach of privileges.

87c $ c < cc c    c c  5

It is humbly submitted that the act of the house of the parliament in question is
fully constitutional and there is no merit which dilutes the same.

M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

c
).cc"0 !$ c
c
7c 6!$!0c$!c0$ c"8!c$!c,0 )$c$c$!0!0!c
c$!c!*!0 !ccM6!0c0cM08#! !c!00!)cc$!c
M"0#"!$9c

$ cccc,   cc    c c c <   cccM; ccM =   c


  cc cM  c

This Court has no urisdiction to interfere in the exercise of power or privileges conferred on
the parliament. In the case of Breadlaugh V. Gosset 1, court observed that what is said or
done within the walls of parliament can¶t be inquired into by any court. Similar view was
given in Richard 6illiam Prebble V. Television New Zealand Ltd 2.

Further in the case of M.S.M Sharma V. Shri Krishna Sihna 3 Hon¶ble court said ,
³ Validity of the proceedings inside the legislature of the state can¶t be call in question on the
allegation that the proceedings laid down by the law has not been strictly followed. No court
can go into such questions which are within the special jurisdiction of the legislature´.

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cccccccccccccccc

cc c cc c

cc cccc

c  c ccc
M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

In U.P. Assembly case4, Hon¶ble court said, ³The question about the existence and extent of
the power privileges and immunities of the house as well as the question about the exercise of
the powers and privileges were entirely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the house.

In Raj Narain V. Atmaram Govind & Others5, court said that the house is the soul
judge of its own privileges. Further it is contended that as per Article 122 (1) of the
constitution, the validity of the proceedings in the parliament shall not be called in question
on the ground of alleged irregularity of the procedure.

If the court raised doubt, with regard to the report of the privilege committee, or
proceed further to investigate on to its credentials, it will be the violation of separation of
power which is a part of basic structure of Indian Constitution held by the Hon¶ble Supreme
Court in Kesavanand Bharti V State of Kerala6

So it is humbly submitted that the present court have no jurisdiction to interfere


in the matter in the exercise of the power and privilege conferred on to the parliament.

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cccccccccccccccc

ccc c! c" c# $%c&  c ' c(
)c c
'c *c +c cc ccc
+
cc#  c +c# cc c

cc#  cc ccc  c
M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

7c 6!$!0c$!c !cc$!cM"0#"!$c" c$!cM6!0cc


!*M# c0c$9c

$ c cc cM  cc c; cc < cc c


cc

The Parliament is the epitome of democracy in India. It is one of the foremost


duty of citizen of India as well as the member of the parliament to protect and upgrade its
dignity and Prestige. Hence with a view to protect and maintained the dignity and Prestige of
the member, committee and both the houses of the parliament, certain privileges has been
conferred under Article 105 of the Indian Constitution to the Union Legislature and Article
194 of the State Legislature. This Privilege indeed includes the power to punish for its
contempt.

In the exercise of its power and privileges and for protection of its dignity, the
house has power to expel its member if he commits breach of privileges or contempt of
house. As under Article 105(3) the Indian legislature has inherited all the powers and
privileges which were posses by the house of COMMON at the commencement of the Indian
constitution. Hence they inherited the power to expel the member also. This view can be
supported by following points.

i)c The Parliamentary History of UK and India


ii)c The Decision of Various Points including the apex Court of India.

i)c The Parliamentary History of UK and India

The History of the House of Commons clearly shows that the Power of expulsion was
exercised by them. Right from Year 1667, On 22nd November, 1967 Mr. ohn
Ashbumham who represented the Sussex Constituency was expelled from the house for
M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

accepting the bribe of £500. Since then more than 50 members have been expelled by the
house of common. In 1947 Mr. Garry Alligham and Mr. Peter Arthur David Baker in
1954 were expelled from the house. Hence facts clearly establish that the power of
expulsion was exercised by the House of COMMON.

In Indian Parliamentary history various occasions has arise when the


parliament has expelled its members. The first case which came up for consideration
before parliament was of Mr.H.G.Mudgal. Mr. Mudgal was expelled from the house.
Likewise this power of expulsion was also exercised by Rajya Sabha against Mr.
Subramanyam Swami and by Lok Sabha against Smt. Indira Gandhi.

ii)c The Decision of various courts including the Apex Court of India.

Very Recently in Year 2005, Lok Sabha expelled its ten members and Rajya Sabha
expelled its one member for breach of privileges. 6hen this expulsion was challenged in
the court, the Supreme Court clearly held that the house has inherent power to expel its
members for its contempt and breach of privileges. The Court in this case said, ³ 6e are
unable to find any reason, as to why legislature established in India by the constitution,
include the parliament under article 105(3) should be denied the claim to the power of
expulsion arising out of remedial power of contempt´7.

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cccccccccccccccc

c  c c& c, c!
c
'c c-c
./ 0ccc c" 0 c c
M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

The Madras high court also held that the power of expulsion is available to the house as a
method of disciplining members. 8

Similar view was held by Madhya Pradesh high Court, that the House in fact has the
Power of Expulsion9

Also in Barton V. Taylor10, the court found that the assembly would have power to expel,
considering expulsion a non punitive power.

Hence the above mentioned cases and facts make it crystal clear that the house of
parliament has the power to expel its members for breach of privileges.

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cccccccccccccccc

cc1 c#$ / 3 c, c4 c( c 3 .5 c  $% c#  c  c6 c+c

c7 /2 .c
c, c6 "  3 .5 c# $%c#  cc c6"c+c

c c c#""c  c c
M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

7c 6!$!0c $!c "$c c $!c M!$$!0c "$ c $c 0!"c
cM08#! !c0c$!M$cc !c0c$9c

$ c"cc cM    c cc


 ccM =   cc cc
 cc

The contempt of House may be generally stated as ³Any act or omission which constructs
or impedes either house of the parliament, in the performance of its functions or if
obstructs or impedes any members or any officers of such house in discharges of its
duties or which has a tendency directly or indirectly to produce such results may be
treated as contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

As per the view of Shri.Subash Kashyap,³ Conduct of a member involving


corruption in the execution of his office as a member is treated by the house as a breach
of privilege. Thus acceptance of any fees, compensation or reward in connection with the
promotion or opposition to any bill, resolution or matter submitted or proposed to be
submitted to the house or any committee thereof, is a breach of privileges´ 11

In parliamentary history of UK, various members were held guilty or


contempt of house for taking bribe and involvement in corruption, like ohn Ashburnhan

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cccccccccccccccc

cc1 /% &c$/ /8c9c:0c" 0 .;c"3)c <cc" 0 )c c
M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

(In 1667); Sir ohn Trevor (who was a speaker of house of commons in 1695) and Mr.
ohn Hunger ford (In 1695). All of them were expelled by the house.

In India also, in the year 2005 various members of Lok Sabha were held
guilty of breach of privileges and were expelled as they were found guilty of taking large
sum of money for raising certain questions in the house.

In the present case the petitioner, was found guilty of taking large sum of
money for raising questions in the house and for voting against confidence motion.
Hence, he is guilty of breach of privilege and contempt of house.

M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

87c 6!$!0c $!c !*M# c c $!c M!$$!0c  c


 $$$"#c0c$9c

$ c!< cc cM    c c  cc

The Expulsion of the member is not Inconsistent with the Constitutional provisions. It does
not violates any provisions of the constitution and also none of the fundamental rights of the
petitioner has been violates.

The expulsion would have been unconstitutional if the house without enquiring
into the matter and without hearing the member had taken the decision of expulsion of the
member. But since the house referred the matter to the privilege committee and has given due
notice to the member and heard him also. The House after hearing the member and as per the
recommendation of the committee has expelled the member, and as per argued earlier, this
power of expulsion is given by the constitutional of the house. So this act is not
unconstitutional and there is no any breach of fundamental rights of the petitioner.

Also, the findings of the privileges committee cannot be questioned on the


point that it acted with partiality and with ill motive. As Hon¶ble Supreme Court has observed
that, the committee of Privileges ordinarily includes members of all parties, represented in
the house and it is difficult to expect that the committee as a body will be actuated by any
malafide intension against the petitioner. Further the business of the committee is only to
make a report of the house and the ultimate decision will be that of house itself. In these
circumstances, the allegations of bad faith cannot be readily accepted´12

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cccccccccccccccc

cc6  6c/ 0 c, c/0c10/ c/ c 0/c3/.c c  c#  c cc c
M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

Further, the contentions of the petitioner that his fundamental rights is been
violated does not make any difference. As in Searchlight 1 case13 Hon¶ble Supreme Court
held that the Parliamentary privileges prevail over fundamental rights. It is said that if
petitioner is deprived of its personal liberty as a result of the proceedings before the
committee of the privileges, such deprivations would be in accordance with the procedures
established by Law and therefore a complaint of breach of Fundamental rights cannot be
made.

Similarly, in Raja Ram Pal Case14, where the facts were quite similar to this
present case, the petitioner made contentions of breach of fundamental rights under Article 21
and Article 19 (1)(g). The Hon¶ble Supreme court rejected it. Supreme Court said, ³6e are
not impressed with any of this contentions of the petitioners. Even if it were to be assumed
this right apply, we do not believe that they could prevent reading the power of expulsion
within Article 105(3).................. Thus, we find that Article 19(1)(g) cannot prevent the
reading of power of expulsion under Article 105(3)............ A Blanket Ban on the power of
expulsion based on Article 21 cannot be read in the constitutional provisions. It cannot negate
the power of expulsion............ 6e hold thus, that the power of expulsion does not come into
conflict with any of the constitutional provisions and thus cannot be negated in this basis.´

Hence in the above finding of the Hon¶ble Supreme Court, this expulsion of the petitioner is
constitutional.

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cccccccccccccccc

cc6  6c/ 0 c, c/0c10/ c/ c 0/c3/.c c  c#  c cc c

ccccc c
c
M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c
c

c
M c
c
c

6   %c c c cc cc %c c = c c  c  %c

 c  %c c


cc
 c c
 c%cc
c c  cc

 c :  c c  c5c

(7c $ cM   c
c   >c c
c
c
&7c $ c   cc c c
c  >cc

m7c $ccc c c; c c


 cc c c c c c cc
,  %c!? c c  c  cc

u   
  
       

) 5ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc 4 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ c

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc A cc0  7ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

M0c0  c!0"#c"$"#c$c0$cM!$$%c&'('ccc
c emorial n ehalf f 0espondent -
c