Parliamentary expulsion of members affirmed as subject to limited judicial review; one opinion finds no constitutional power

Addresses whether Houses may expel members under parliamentary privileges and the scope of judicial review. Majority analysis treats expulsion as a disciplinary power exercisable by the Houses where adequate relevant material exists, and holds judicial review is limitedcourts will not reappraise legislative assessments so long as procedure was not illegal, arbitrary or violative of Articles 14, 20 or 21; principles of natural justice are flexible and reasonable opportunity sufficed; raw video footage may constitute corroborative evidence. A concurrent opinion concluded Article 105(3) does not authorize expulsion and that expulsion would require constitutional amendment or statutory provision, thus challenging the validity of expulsions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Articles 101 and 102 are exhaustive regarding the modes of cessation of membership of Parliament.
2. Whether Parliament has the power to expel its members as part of its powers, privileges, and immunities under Article 105(3).

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Exhaustiveness of Articles 101 and 102
Majority View:
- Constitutional Provisions: Articles 101 and 102, along with the Representation of People Act, 1951, provide exhaustive grounds for disqualification and cessation of membership.
- Express Provisions: The Constitution makes detailed provisions for the election, tenure, and cessation of membership of Parliament, leaving no room for additional grounds like expulsion.
- Judicial Interpretation: The Constitution's express provisions cannot be overridden by implied powers under Article 105(3). The power to expel members is not incidental but a significant power that should have been explicitly mentioned if intended.

Minority View (R.V. Raveendran, J.):
- Constitutional Framework: The Constitution provides specific grounds for disqualification and cessation of membership, and expulsion is not one of them.
- Legislative Intent: The Constitution-makers did not intend to include expulsion as a mode of cessation of membership, as evidenced by the detailed provisions in Articles 101 and 102.
- Judicial Precedents: The principle that express provisions in the Constitution cannot be supplemented by implied powers under Article 105(3) is well-established.

Issue 2: Power of Expulsion under Article 105(3)
Majority View:
- Historical Context: The power of expulsion in the British Parliament is rooted in its historical context and is not automatically applicable to the Indian Parliament.
- Constitutional Interpretation: Article 105(3) provides for incidental powers, privileges, and immunities necessary for the functioning of Parliament but does not extend to significant powers like expulsion.
- Judicial Review: The power of expulsion, if exercised, is subject to judicial review to ensure it does not violate constitutional provisions.

Minority View (R.V. Raveendran, J.):
- Inherent Power: Parliament does not have an inherent power of expulsion. Such power must be explicitly provided for in the Constitution or through a law made under Article 102(1)(e).
- Judicial Oversight: Any action of expulsion by Parliament is subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure it aligns with constitutional provisions.

Conclusion:
- Majority Decision: The power to expel members is not inherent in Parliament under Article 105(3) and must be explicitly provided for in the Constitution or through a law made under Article 102(1)(e).
- Minority Decision (R.V. Raveendran, J.): The action of expulsion by Parliament is invalid as it violates Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution. The petitioners continue to be members of Parliament, subject to any lawful action for cessation of their membership.

Final Judgment:
- Majority: The petitions and transferred cases questioning the validity of the expulsion decisions are dismissed.
- Minority (R.V. Raveendran, J.): The expulsion is invalid, and the petitioners continue to be members of Parliament.

---