Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.18.QUESTION No.(b):

Whether the State Legislature has the power and privilege under Article 194 to suspend the appellants/writ petitioners?

4.19.It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, that there is no alleged breach of privilege for the reason that it has not been codified as required under Article 194(3) of the Constitution or by means of Rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution of India and hence the proposed recourse to British Parliamentary Practice is neither permissible by virtue of Constitution 44th Amendment, which did not save the law, as stood in the year 1950, when the Constitution was enacted, as per Section 7 of the General Clauses Act. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, that the parliamentary privilege is restricted to the proceedings happened inside the four walls of the Parliament and so also the legislative privilege and in support of his submission, placed reliance upon the decisions reported in (2010) UKSC 52 and (1998) 4 SCC 626 (P.V.NARASIMHA RAO V. STATE (CBI/SPE)).

4.20.In response to the said submission, the learned Advocate General, who has acted as the Amicus Curiae, submitted that the said issue/question raised on behalf of the appellants, has no longer res integra in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Raja Ram Pal's case and the scope of Constitution 44th Amendment of the year 1978 has been elaborately considered and dealt with in Anbazhagan's case, A.K.Bose's case and Vijaykant's case (cited supra).

4.21.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraphs 125 and 126 of the judgment in Raja Ram Pal's case ((2007) 3 SCC 184), dealt with the very same issue with regard to the Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978, and held that the power of expulsion is not diluted or negated by any of the Constitution or statutory provisions and further held that when the power of expulsion is available under Article 194(3) to a Legislative Assembly even to expel a Member, it has got power to suspend a Member, which is of temporary in nature, and admittedly, less severe than the punishment of expulsion.

4.25.In Anbazhagan's case (cited supra), in paragraph No.69, it has been held that the power of expulsion subsists not only on the commencement of the Constitution, but in the absence of anything to show that this power was given up between the commencement of the Constitution and the commencement of the Constitution 44th Amendment Act, such a power must be held to be subsisting at the material time for the purpose of Article 194(3) of the Constitution.

4.26.In view of the authoritative pronouncement of Raja Ram Pal's case on the said issue, Question No.(b) is answered in negative and against the appellants.