Mahua Moitra's Lok Sabha Expulsion Beyond Scope Of Judicial Review: Secretariat Tells SC

The Lok Sabha Secretariat submitted in the Supreme Court that the petition filed by TMC leader and former MP Mahua Moitra is not maintainable and does not satisfy the threshold of judicial review

The Lok Sabha Secretariat submitted in the Supreme Court that the petition filed by TMC leader and former MP Mahua Moitra is not maintainable and does not satisfy the threshold of judicial review of legislative action that is permissible under the Constitution.

"That the present writ petition is not maintainable in light of Article 105 and Article 122 of the Constitution of India. The present petition does not satisfy the threshold of judicial review of legislative action that is permissible under the scheme of the Constitution of India." read the affidavit submitted by the secretariat in the top court.

It further explains that the Article 122 envisages a framework wherein the Parliament is allowed to exercise its internal functions and powers without judicial intervention in the first instance as the Parliament is sovereign in respect of its internal proceedings. "There is also an initial presumption that such powers have been regularly and reasonably exercised, not violating the law or the Constitutional provisions and courts will not lightly presume abuse or misuse thereof."

The LS Secretariat asserted that proceedings of the Parliament (and its constituents) cannot be called into question alleging any irregularity of procedure and the House of the People is the sole judge of the lawfulness of proceedings before it.

The affidavit further said that the right to be elected to the Parliament and the right to continue as such is not traceable to any of the rights under Part III of the Constitution. And thus, Moitra's petition under Article 32, is therefore, not maintainable.

 "Article 105 of the Constitution of India, categorically provides under the latter part of Clause (3) thereof, that the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of the Parliament, and of the members shall be such as may be defined by the Parliament, and until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before coming into force of Section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978," it said.

The Secretariat contends that prior to the introduction of Section 15 of the Constitution (Fortyfourth Amendment) Act, 1978, the law as it stood was that the powers would until so defined by the Parliament “shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the commencement of this Constitution." Noticeably, this provision has firstly, not been expressely made “subject to the other provisions of the Constitution of India”, as is the case in Article 105(1) and secondly, does not comprise “law” made by the State to be limited by Part III of the Constitution.

The Secretariat's affidavit says that the power of expulsion of a Member of Parliament by the House comes within this latter part of Article 105(3). That the aforesaid interpretation of the latter part of Article 105(3) has expressely been recognised by the Constitution Bench decision of this Hon’ble Court in Pandit M.S.M Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha and Ors., 1959 Supp.

The Supreme Court will resume hearing Moitra's petition in May 2024.