The Supreme Court On Parliamentary Expulsions: A Divided Verdict
- IJLLR Journal
- Oct 15
- 2 min read
Shreya Mahajan, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
I. Introduction
This essay examines the controversial ‘Cash-for-Query’ scandal in the Indian Parliament and the subsequent legal case challenging the expulsion of implicated members. This essay focuses on Justice Raveendran’s dissenting judgment that should have been followed. For this, we will first examine the facts concerning the case. Second, we will analyse the dissenting judge’s holding and the rationale behind it by closely examining the relevant Constitutional provisions. Third, we will argue why the dissenting judgment is the correct interpretation in this instance through emphasis on Constituent Assembly Debates and the difference between the British and Indian Parliaments. Finally, we will advocate for immediate legal reforms to codify parliamentary privileges, emphasizing the importance of balancing legislative independence with constitutional limitations and judicial oversight.
II. Factual Background of the case
In 2005, 1 member of the Rajya Sabha and 10 members of the Lok Sabha were caught on camera accepting money from undercover journalists in exchange for raising questions in Parliament.1 The news channel Aaj Tak broadcasted this episode, quickly making the ‘Cash- for-Query’ scam a national headline. In a swift response, both Houses of Parliament established committees to investigate the matter. The committees, finding no reason to doubt the authenticity of the video footage, recommended the expulsion of the implicated members. Acting on these recommendations, both Houses adopted motions to expel them. Aggrieved by this decision, the members approached the Supreme Court, alleging that Parliament lacked the jurisdiction to expel them and claiming a violation of their fundamental rights. Additionally, the Speaker and Chairman of the two Houses refused to be named as respondents, asserting that the matter of parliamentary privileges was the ‘exclusive’ domain of the Parliament beyond judicial review. Consequently, the Union of India was tasked with defending the Parliament’s collective decision.
