Part V: The Union

Article 122: Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament

--- Original Article ---

(1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.

(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.

Explanations

Article 122 of the Indian Constitution ensures that courts cannot interfere with or question the internal procedural matters of Parliament. This provision upholds the principle of parliamentary autonomy by shielding the legislature from judicial intervention, particularly on matters concerning the conduct of business or irregularities in procedure. This is fundamental to the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

Clause (1) – Protection of Parliamentary Proceedings

Clause (1) establishes that the validity of any parliamentary proceedings cannot be questioned by courts on the grounds of procedural irregularities. This reinforces parliamentary sovereignty, ensuring that procedural errors in legislative processes do not lead to judicial invalidation of laws or parliamentary decisions.

Clause (2) – Exemption from Judicial Review for Parliamentary Officers

Clause (2) provides immunity to parliamentary officers or members vested with powers to regulate the conduct of business or maintain order in Parliament. Decisions made by officers such as the Speaker or the Chairman, in the exercise of their duties, are thus beyond judicial review. For instance, the Speaker’s ruling on whether a Bill is classified as a Money Bill or decisions relating to parliamentary discipline are protected under this clause.

Historical Context

Article 122 draws its origin from British parliamentary traditions, where the judiciary cannot question the procedures of the legislature. The framers of the Indian Constitution adopted this principle to preserve the independence of Parliament and to prevent judicial encroachment on legislative functions. This was critical to ensuring the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature in the new democratic setup of India.

Judicial Interpretation and Precedents

The scope of Article 122 was defined and reinforced in various landmark judgments. For example, in the Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) case, the Supreme Court upheld that judicial review cannot extend to parliamentary proceedings unless there is a violation of constitutional provisions or fundamental rights. The judgment highlighted that internal decisions of Parliament, such as expulsion of members, are protected from judicial scrutiny under Article 122.

Another significant case was Amarinder Singh v. Spl. Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha (2010), in which the Supreme Court reiterated that internal parliamentary procedures, such as the Speaker’s rulings, cannot be challenged in court unless they infringe upon constitutional limits.

Real-Life Examples

• In the 2005 cash-for-questions scandal, several MPs were expelled from Parliament after being caught accepting bribes in exchange for raising specific questions in the House. When the expulsions were challenged in court, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of Parliament, invoking Article 122 to shield the internal disciplinary actions from judicial review.

Legislative History

Article 122 of the Indian Constitution, primarily drafted and debated as Article 101 of the Draft Constitution, was subsequently adopted by the Constituent Assembly on May 23, 1949. The article was rooted in the need to protect parliamentary autonomy from external scrutiny, particularly by the judiciary, thus ensuring a separation of powers between the branches of government.

Debates and Amendments

During the Constituent Assembly debates, Shri H.V. Kamath proposed an amendment to Clause (1), suggesting the addition of the words "in any court" to clarify that the validity of parliamentary proceedings could not be challenged in court. This amendment, along with others proposed by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, was rejected after opposition from Mr. Santhanam and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

References

• The Constitution of India - Article 122, Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament.
• Constituent Assembly Debates - Discussions on Article 101 (Draft Article 101).
• Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007).
• Amarinder Singh v. Spl. Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha (2010).
• Basu, D.D. "Commentary on the Constitution of India".