2007 Supreme(SC) 37

2007(1) Supreme 245
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., K.G. Balakrishnan, C.K. Thakker, R.V. Raveendran and D.K. Jain, JJ.
Raja Ram Pal—Petitioner
versus
The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors.—Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 1 of 2006
With
Transferred Case Nos. 82 to 90 of 2006 and Writ Petition (C) No. 129 of 2006
Decided on 10-1-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Attorney General for India : Gopal Subramanian, ASG., Dayan Krishnan, Gautam Narayan, Satyakam, T.S. Murthy, Raghenth Basant, Aman Ahluwalia, Arunav Patnaik, Abhishek Tiwari and D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the Appearing Parties : Ram Jethamalani, P.N. Lekhi, T.R. Andhyarujina, Sr. Advocates, Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, Ms. Gyan Mitra, Chand Kiran, P.K. Jayakrishnan, K.C. Lamba, Ms. Sudha Pal, V.K. Shukla, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Ashish Tripathi, K.K. Mohan, Nawal Kishore Jha, M.P. Jha, Harshvardhan Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, Harish Pandey, Samar Bansal, Abhik Kumar, Ms. P.R. Mala, Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Rajesh Kumar, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Devvrat, Harish Pandey, Rajeev Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthi, Sachin Jain, Mukesh Kumar Tripathi, Lokesh Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Jaspreet S. Rai, Rakesh Kumar, M.K. Garg, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, S.K. Mehndiratta, Pranav Sen, S.W.A. Qadri, Ashish Chugh, Gaurav Agrawal, Satyakam, D.S. Mahra, R.M. Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Power of expulsion of members from membership of the House of Parliament can be read within Article 105(3) of the Constitution of India and this power is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution.
2. The manner of exercise of the power or privilege by Parliament is immune from judicial scrutiny only to the extent indicated in Article 122(1) of the Constitution of India but in case gross illegality or violation of constitutional provisions is shown, the judicial review will not be inhibited in any manner by Article 122, or for that matter by Article 105 of the Constitution.
3. It lies within the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to examine and determine the extent of power and privileges to find out whether actually power of expulsion of members from the House of Parliament is available under Article 105(3) of the Constitution or not.
4. Parliament is a co-ordinate organ and its views do deserve deference even while its acts are amenable to judicial scrutiny.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Articles 105, 122 and 194—Expulsion of membership of Parliament—Parliamentary privileges, powers, immunities—Competence of Houses of Parliament to expel their respective Members from membership of the House—Ambit and scope of judicial review in such matters—Whether Parliament has power to expel a member—(Yes)—Whether such power and privilege is covered by clause (3) of Article 105 of the Constitution—(Yes)—Mere possibility of misuse of power by Parliament—Whether makes the provision ultra vires or bad in law—(No)—Parameters for judicial review—Scope for judicial review in matters concerning parliamentary proceedings is limited and restricted—Court will decline to interfere if the grievance brought before it is restricted to allegations of ‘irregularity of procedure’—But this Court has jurisdiction to examine the procedure adopted to find if it is vitiated by any illegality or unconstitutionality—Need for circumspection in judicial review of such matters as concern the powers and privileges of Parliament.

       Held : Majority Judgment [Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI for Himself and on behalf of K.G. Balakrishnan and D.K. Jain, JJ.]

       Conscious of the high status of these bodies, the Constitution accorded certain powers, privileges and immunities to the Parliament and State Legislatures and their respective members. For this purpose, specific provisions were included in the Constitution in Articles 105. For the present, it may only be noticed that sub-Article (1) of Article 105 and Article 194 respectively confers on the Members of Parliament and the State Legislatures respectively "freedom of speech" in the Legislature, though "subject to the provisions" of the Constitution and "subject to the rules and orders regulating the procedure" of Parliament or of the Legislatures, as the case may be.(Paras 30 and 31)

       There was virtually a consensus amongst the learned counsel that it lies within the powers and jurisdiction of this Court to examine and determine the extent of power and privileges to find out whether actually power of expulsion is available under Article 105(3) or not.(Para 38)

       Whenever Parliament, or for that matter any State legislature, claims any power or privilege in terms of the provisions contained in Article 105(3), or Article 194(3) as the case may be, it is the court which has the authority and the jurisdiction to examine, on grievance being brought before it, to find out if the particular power or privilege that has been claimed or asserted by the legislature is one that was contemplated by the said constitutional provisions or, to put it simply, if it was such a power or privilege as can be said to have been vested in the House of Commons of the Parliament of United Kingdom as on the date of commencement of the Constitution of India so as to become available to the Indian legislatures.(Para 57)

       Summary of the Principles relating to Parameter of Judicial Review in relation to exercise of Parliamentary Provisions

       We may summarize the principles that can be culled out from the above discussion. They are:-

       a.Parliament is a co-ordinate organ and its views do deserve deference even while its acts are amenable to judicial scrutiny;

       b.Constitutional system of government abhors absolutism and it being the cardinal principle of our Constitution that no one, howsoever lofty, can claim to be the sole judge of the power given under the Constitution, mere co-ordinate constitutional status, or even the status of an exalted constitutional functionaries, does not disentitle this Court from exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review of action which part-take the character of judicial or quasi-judicial decision;

       c.The expediency and necessity of exercise of power or privilege by the legislature are for the determination of the legislative authority and not for determination by the courts;

       d.The judicial review of the manner of exercise of power of contempt or privilege does not mean the said jurisdiction is being usurped by the judicature;

       e.Having regard to the importance of the functions discharged by the legislature under the Constitution and the majesty and grandeur of its task, there would always be an initial presumption that the powers, privileges etc. have been regularly and reasonably exercised, not violating the law or the Constitutional provisions, this presumption being a rebuttable one;

       f.The fact that Parliament is an august body of co-ordinate constitutional position does not mean that there can be no judicially manageable standards to review exercise of its power;

       g.While the area of powers, privileges and immunities of the legislature being exceptional and extraordinary its acts, particularly relating to exercise thereof, ought not to be tested on the traditional parameters of judicial review in the same manner as an ordinary administrative action would be tested, and the Court would confine itself to the acknowledged parameters of judicial review and within the judicially discoverable & manageable standards, there is no foundation to the plea that a legislative body cannot be attributed jurisdictional error;

       h.The Judicature is not prevented from scrutinizing the validity of the action of the legislature trespassing on the fundamental rights conferred on the citizens;

       i.The broad contention that the exercise of privileges by legislatures cannot be decided against the touchstone of fundamental rights or the constitutional provisions is not correct;

       j.If a citizen, whether a non-member or a member of the Legislature, complains that his fundamental rights under Article 20 or 21 had been contravened, it is the duty of this Court to examine the merits of the said contention, especially when the impugned action entails civil consequences;

       k.There is no basis to claim of bar of exclusive cognizance or absolute immunity to the Parliamentary proceedings in Article 105(3) of the Constitution;

       l.The manner of enforcement of privilege by the legislature can result in judicial scrutiny, though subject to the restrictions contained in the other Constitutional provisions, for example Article 122 or 212;

       m.Articles 122 (1) and Article 212 (1) displace the broad doctrine of exclusive cognizance of the legislature in England of exclusive cognizance of internal proceedings of the House rendering irrelevant the case law that emanated from courts in that jurisdiction; inasmuch as the same has no application to the system of governance provided by Constitution of India;

       n.Article 122 (1) and Article 212 (1) prohibit the validity of any proceedings in legislature from being called in question in a court merely on the ground of irregularity of procedure;

       o.The truth or correctness of the material will not be questioned by the court nor will it go into the adequacy of the material or substitute its opinion for that of the legislature;

       p.Ordinarily, the legislature, as a body, cannot be accused of having acted for an extraneous purpose or being actuated by caprice or mala fide intention, and the court will not lightly presume abuse or misuse, giving allowance for the fact that the legislature is the best judge of such matters, but if in a given case, the allegations to such effect are made, the Court may examine the validity of the said contention, the onus on the person alleging being extremely heavy;

       q.The rules which the legislature has to make for regulating its procedure and the conduct of its business have to be subject to the provisions of the Constitution;

       r.Mere availability of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, as made by the legislature in exercise of enabling powers under the Constitution, is never a guarantee that they have been duly followed;

       s.The proceedings which may be tainted on account of substantive or gross illegality or unconstitutionality are not protected from judicial scrutiny;

       t.Even if some of the material on which the action is taken is found to be irrelevant, the court would still not interfere so long as there is some relevant material sustaining the action;

       u.An ouster clause attaching finality to a determination does ordinarily oust the power of the court to review the decision but not on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or it being a nullity for some reason such as gross illegality, irrationality, violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity; (Para 389)

       As per C.K. Thakker, J. [Concurring Judgment]

       In the instant cases, the Court is called upon to answer a limited question whether Parliament can expel a member. As I have already discussed in earlier part of this judgment, even a Colonial Legislature having limited privileges possesses the power to expel a member if his conduct is found to be not befitting a member of Legislature. If it is so, in my opinion, it goes without saying that Indian Parliament, which has undoubtedly much more powers than a Colonial Legislature, can take such action and it cannot be successfully contended that Parliament does not possess the power to expel a member. I am, therefore, unable to uphold the argument of the petitioners.(Para 570)

       Parliament, like the other organs of the State, is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and is expected, nay, bound to exercise its powers in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution. But I am unable to hold that the power to expel a member is a carte blanche in nature and Palriament has no authority to expel any member. In my view, Parliament can take appropriate action against erring members by imposing appropriate punishments or penalties and expulsion is one of them. I may, however, hasten to add that under our Constitution, every action of every authority is subject to law as nobody is above law. Parliament is not an exception to this universal rule. It is, therefore, open to an aggrieved party to approach this Court raising grievance against the action of Parliament and if the Court is satisfied within the limited parameters of judicial review that the action is unwarranted, unlawful or unconstitutional, it can set aside the action. But it is not because Parliament has no power to expel a member but the action was not found to be in consonance with law.(Para 573)

       I have already held that the decisions taken, orders made, findings recorded or conclusions arrived at by Parliament/State Legislature are subject to judicial review, albeit on limited grounds and parameters. If, therefore, there is gross abuse of power by Parliament/State Legislature, this Court will not hesitate in discharging its duty by quashing the order or setting aside unreasonable action.(Para 614)

       On my part, I may state that I am an optimist who has trust and faith in both these august units, namely, Legislature and Judiciary. By and large, constitutional functionaries in this country have admirably performed their functions, exercised their powers and discharged their duties effectively, efficiently and sincerely and there is no reason to doubt that in coming years also they would continue to act in a responsible manner expected of them. I am equally confident that not only all the constituents of the State will keep themselves within the domain of their authority and will not encroach, trespass or overstep the province of other organs but will also act in preserving, protecting and upholding the faith, confidence and trust reposed in them by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution and by the people of this great country by mutual regard, respect and dignity for each other. On the whole, the situation is satisfactory and I see no reason to be disappointed for future.(Para 616)

       Minority Judgment [R.V. Raveendran, J.]

       The Constitution-makers have made detailed and specific provisions regarding the manner in which a person becomes a Member of Parliament (elected/nominated), the duration for which he continues as a member and the manner in which he ceases to be a member and his seat becomes vacant. Therefore neither the question of election or nomination, nor tenure, nor cessation/termination of membership of the House covered by the express provisions in the Constitution, can fall under other powers, privileges and immunities of the House mentioned in Article 105(3). (Para 31)

       We have also noticed above that the Constitution makes express provisions for election/appointment and removal/cessation of service of the Executive (President and Vice-President), Judiciary (Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court) and all other constitutional functionaries (Attorney General, Auditor and Comptroller General, Chief Election Commissioner etc.). It is therefore inconceivable that the Constitution-makers would have omitted to provide for expulsion as one of the methods of cessation of membership or consequential vacancy, if it intended to entrust such power to the Parliament. (Para 32)

       In view of the express provisions in the Constitution, as to when a person gets disqualified to be a member of either House of Parliament (and thereby ceases to be a member) and when a consequential vacancy arises, it is impermissible to read a new category of cessation of membership by way of expulsion and consequential vacancy, by resorting to the incidental powers, privileges and immunities referred to in Article 105. (Para 33)

       Clause (3) of Article 105 opens with the words in other respects. The provision for powers, privileges and immunities in clause (3) occurs after referring to the main privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament, in clause (1) of Article 105, and the main immunity against court proceedings in clause (2) of Article 105. Therefore, clause (3) is intended to provide for non-main or incidental or miscellaneous powers, privileges and immunities which are numerous to mention. Two things are clear from clause (3). It is not intended to provide for the matters relating to nomination/election, term of office, qualifications, disqualification/cessation, for which express provisions are already made in Articles 80, 81, 83, 84, 101 and 102. Nor is it intended to provide for important privilege of freedom of speech or important immunity from court proceedings referred to in Clause (1) and (2) of Article 105. By no stretch of imagination, the power to expel a member can be considered as an incidental matter. If such a power was to be given, it would have been specifically mentioned.(Para 34)

       The appropriate course in case of allegation of corruption against a Member of Parliament, is to prosecute the member in accordance with law (The immunity under Article 105(2) may not be available, as the decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State [1998 (4) SCC 626] recognizes immunity to a member who is a bribe taker only where the bribe is taken in respect of a vote given by him in Parliament and not otherwise). Such cases can be fast tracked. Pending such criminal proceedings, the member can be suspended temporarily, if necessary, so as to prevent him from participating in the deliberations of the Houses. On being tried, if the member is convicted, he becomes disqualified for being or continuing as a Member under Article 102(1)(e). If he is acquitted, he is entitled to continue as a member. Though it may sound cumbersome, that apparently is what the Constitution intends. I am, therefore, of the considered view that there is no power of expulsion in the Parliament, either inherent or traceable to Article 105(3). Expulsion by the House will be possible only if Article 102 or Article 101 is suitably amended or if a law is made under Article 102(1)(e) enabling the House to expel a member found unworthy or unfit of continuing as a member.(Paras 35 and 36)

       (ii) Constitution of India—Articles 105, 122 and 194—Expulsion of ten members of Lok Sabha and one member of Rajya Sabha from membership of Parliament House—Writ petitions challenging competence of Houses of Parliament to expel their respective members (MPs)—On 12.12.2005, a TV News Channel Aaj Tak showed some video footage of some persons, alleged to be members of Parliament accepting money for tabling questions or raising issues in the House—Committees were appointed to inquire into the allegations and conduct of these Members—Another private channel telecasted a programme on 19.12.2005 alleging improper conduct of another MP of Rajya Sabha in relation to the implementation of Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme—Report of inquiry concluded that evidence against the 10 members of Lok Sabha was incriminate—Report recorded its deep distress over acceptance of money by MPs for raising questions in the House and found that it had eroded the credibility of Parliament as an institution and recommended expulsion of 10 members from the membership of Lok Sabha—Lok Sabha Secretariat issued the impugned notification notifying expulsion of those MPs with effect from the same date—Similar process was undertaken by the Rajya Sabha in respect of its Member—Whether power of expulsion of MPs would be inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution—(No)—Power of expulsion is not negated by other constitutional or statutory provisions—Plea of violation of provisions relating to vacancy and disqualification—Plea of violation of provisions relating to salary etc. and the right to a fixed term—Plea of violation of right of the constituency to be represented and the right to vote—Fundamental rights of the member—Power of self composition not available to the Parliament—Whether action of two Houses of Parliament expelling the petitioners is valid—(Yes) (Majority Opinion).

       Held : Majority Judgment [Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI for Himself and on behalf of K.G. Balakrishnan and D.K. Jain, JJ.]

       Article 105(3) is itself a constitutional provision and it is necessary that we must construe the provisions in such a way that a conflict with other provisions is avoided. We are of the view that where there is a specific constitutional provision as may have the effect of curtailing these fundamental rights if found applicable, there is no need for a law to be passed in terms of Article 19(6). For example, Article 102 relating to disqualifications provides that members who are of unsound mind or who are undischarged insolvents as declared by competent courts are disqualified. These grounds are not mentioned in the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. Though this provision would have the effect of curtailing the rights under Article 19(1)(g), we doubt that it can ever be contended that a specific law made in public interest is required. Similarly, if Article 105(3) provides for the power of expulsion (though not so expressly mentioned), it cannot be said that a specific law in public interest is required. Simply because the Parliament is given the power to make law on this subject is no reason to say that a law has to be mandatorily passed, when the Constitution itself provides that all the powers of the House of Commons vest until such a law is made. Thus, we find that Article 19(1)(g) cannot prevent the reading of power of expulsion under Article 105(3).(Para 153)

       It is not possible to say that because a procedure established by law is required, it will prevent the power of expulsion altogether and that every act of expulsion will be contrary to the procedure established by law. Whether such a claim is maintainable upon specific facts of each case is something that will have to be considered when the question of judicial review is taken up. At this stage, however, a blanket ban on the power of expulsion based on Article 21 cannot be read in the Constitutional provisions. This is an issue that may have a bearing on the legality of the order. But, it cannot negate the power of expulsion. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the power of expulsion does not come into conflict with any of the constitutional provisions and thus cannot be negated on this basis.(Paras 154 and 155)

       The reports of the Inquiry Committee of Lok Sabha and the Committee on Ethics of Rajya Sabha indicate that both of the said Committees had called for explanations from each of the Members in question and had given due consideration to the same. The submissions of the learned counsel for Union of India that the proceedings of the respective Committees were open to one and all, including these petitioners who actually participated in the proceedings could not be refuted. Therefore, it is not permissible to the petitioners to contend that evidence had been taken behind their back. The reports further show that the Committees had taken care not to proceed on the edited versions of the video recordings. Each of them insisted and procured the raw video-footage of the different sting operations and drew conclusions after viewing the same. As pointed out by the learned counsel for Union of India, the evidence contained in the video recordings indicating demand or acceptance of money was further corroborated in two cases by the admissions made by the two Members of Rajya Sabha. Dr. Chhattrapal Singh Lodha had sought to attribute the receipt of money to a different transaction connected with some organization he was heading. But this explanation was not believed by the Committee on Ethics that unanimously found his complicity in unethical behavior on account of acceptance of money for tabling questions in Rajya Sabha. Dr. Swami Sakshiji Maharaj, on the other hand, went to the extent of expressing his regrets and displaying a feeling of shame for his conduct even before the Committee on Ethics.(Para 408)

       We are of the considered view that the impugned resolutions of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha cannot be questioned before us on the plea of proportionality. We are not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Legislative chambers with regard to the extent of punishment that deserved to be meted out in cases of this nature. That is a matter which must be left to the prerogative and sole discretion of the legislative body. All the more so because it is the latter which is the best Judge in exercise of its jurisdiction the object of which is self-protection. So long as the orders of expulsion are not illegal or unconstitutional, we are not concerned with the consequences for the petitioners on account of these expulsions. (Para 410)

       On perusal of the Inquiry reports, we find that there is no violation of any of the fundamental rights in general and Articles 14, 20 or 21 in particular. Proper opportunity to explain and defend having been given to each of the petitioners, the procedure adopted by the two Houses of Parliament cannot be held to be suffering from any illegality, irrationality, unconstitutionality, violation of rules of natural justice or perversity. It cannot be held that the petitioners were not given a fair deal.(Para 412)

       As per C.K. Thakker, J. [Concurring Judgment]

       To me, however, there is no doubt and it is well-settled that in such cases, Parliament has power to take up the matter so far as privileges are concerned and it can take an appropriate action in accordance with law. If it feels that the case of Cash for query was made out and it adversely affected honesty, integrity and dignity of the House, it is open to the House to attempt to ensure restoration of faith in one of the pillars of democratic polity.(Para 604)

       Now, it cannot be gainsaid that expulsion of a member is a grave measure and normally, it should not be taken. I also concede that Parliament could have taken a lenient view as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. But it cannot be accepted as a proposition of law that since such action results in deprivation of constituency having its representation in the House, a member can never be expelled. If representation of the constituency is taken to be the sole consideration, no action can be taken which would result in absence of representation of such constituency in the House. Such interpretation would make statutory provisions (the Representation of the People Act, 1951) as also constitutional scheme (Articles 84, 102, 190, 191, 192, Tenth Schedule, etc.) non-workable, nugatory and otiose. If a member is disqualified or has been convicted by a competent court, he has to go and at least for the time being, till new member is elected, there is no representation of the constituency in the House but it is inevitable and cannot be helped.(Para 607)

       There is one more aspect also. Once it is conceded that an action of suspension of a member can be taken (and it was expressly conceded), I fail to understand why in principle, an action of expulsion is impossible or illegal. In a given case, such action may or may not be lawful or called for, but in theory, it is not possible to hold that while the former is permissible, the latter is not. If it is made referable to representation of the constituency, then as observed in Raj Narain, withdrawal of a member from the House even for a brief period is a serious matter both for the member and his constituency. Important debates and votes may take place during his absence even if the period be brief and he may not be able to present his view-point or that of the group or that of the constituency he represented. It is, however, in the nature of disciplinary or punitive action for a specific parliamentary offence, namely, disorderly behaviour. Moreover, if the House has a right to expel a member, non-representation of the constituency is merely a consequence, nothing more. "If the constituency goes unrepresented in the Assembly as a result of the act of an elected member inconsistent with the dignity and derogatory of the conduct expected of an elected member, then it is the voters who alone will have to take the blame for electing a member who indulges in conduct which is unbecoming of an elected representative".(Para 608)

       Again, it is well-established principle of law that the mere possibility or likelihood of abuse of power does not make the provision ultra vires or bad in law. There is distinction between existence (or availability) of power and exercise thereof. Legality or otherwise of the power must be decided by considering the nature of power, the extent thereof, the body or authority on whom it has been conferred, the circumstances under which it can be exercised and all other considerations which are relevant and germane to the exercise of such power. A provision of law cannot be objected only on the ground that it is likely to be misused.(Para 611)

       Minority Judgment [R.V. Raveendran, JJ.]

       The action of the two Houses of Parliament, expelling the petitioners is violative of Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution and therefore invalid. Petitioners, therefore, continue to be Members of Parliament (subject to any action for cessation of their membership). (Para 37)

       (iii) Constitution of India—Article 105—Expulsion of member from House of Parliament—Whether the Indian Parliament has power of expulsion in relation to the power to punish for contempt—(Yes)—No bar on reading the power to punish for contempt in Article 105(3) of the Constitution—Even if the Parliament had only the limited remedial power to punish for contempt, the power to expel would be well within the limits of such remedial contempt power.

       Held : We are unable to accept the contention that the power to punish for contempt is denied to the Indian legislatures as they are not Courts of Record. However, we would like to emphasize that the power to punish for contempt of the House of Commons is a very broad power, encompassing a variety of other powers. The case of UP Assembly examined only one aspect of that power – to issue unspeaking warrants – and held that such a power is unavailable under our constitution. What we are presently examining in the cases at hand is another aspect of this broad contempt power – the power to expel a sitting member. While we hold that the power to punish for contempt in its totality has not been struck down by decision in UP Assembly, we do not intend to rule on the validity of the broad power to punish for contempt as a whole. The different elements of this broad contempt power will have to be decided on an independent scrutiny of validity in appropriate case. We would restrict ourselves to the power to expel a member for contempt committed by him. Having found, however, that there is no bar on reading the power to punish for contempt in Article 105(3), it is possible to source the power of expulsion through the same provision.(Para 258)

       It is axiomatic to state that expulsion is always in respect of a member. At the same time, it needs to be borne in mind that a member is part of the House due to which his or her conduct always has a direct bearing upon the perception of the House. Any legislative body must act through its members and the connection between the conduct of the members and the perception of the House is strong. We, therefore, conclude that even if the Parliament had only the limited remedial power to punish for contempt, the power to expel would be well within the limits of such remedial contempt power. (Para 274)

       We are unable to find any reason as to why legislatures established in India by the Constitution, including the Parliament under Article 105 (3), should be denied the claim to the power of expulsion arising out of remedial power of contempt.(Para 275)