Irregularity in Parliament proceedings beyond judicial review: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today held that any irregularity in the proceedings of Parliament is beyond judicial review which cannot be challenged in courts. 

"It is a right of each House of Parliament to be the sole judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings. The courts cannot go into the lawfulness of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament," a five-judge constitution bench headed by chief justice KG Balakrishanan said.

The Bench refused to go into the validity of a Lok Sabha speaker's order of adjourning the proceeding in December 2003 and resuming it on January 29 next year. The speaker had construed it to be continuation of the winter session and not the beginning of a new session which is required to be addressed by the president.

"The business transacted and the validity of proceeding (of the House) after the resumption of its sitting pursuant to the directions of the speaker cannot be inquired into by the Courts," the bench said in its 30-page judgement. 

The bench said while it was open to the courts to scrutinise any illegal or unconstitutional procedure in Parliament, it coiuld not do so if the complaint is regarding any procedural irregularity.

The apex court dismissed a petition filed by RPI(A) leader Ramdas Athawale, who had challenged the decision of the then Lok Sabha Speaker to treat the first meeting of the House in January 2004 as the continuation of the winter session
which was adjourned sine die on December 23, 2003.

"The business transacted and the validity of proceedings after the resumption of sittings of the House pursuant to the directions of the speaker cannot be inquired into by the courts. No decision of speaker can be challenged by a member of the House complaining of mere irregularity in procedure in the conduct of the business," the bench said.

Athawale had contended that though the winter session was adjourned, it could not be termed as continuation when it met in January next year.

He had contended that the meeting of the House for the first time in each year has to be considered as the first sitting of Parliament requiring the address by the president to both the Houses.

The bench also comprising justices SH Kapadia, RV Raveendran, B Sudershan Reddy and P Sathasivam said that power of the speaker to regulate the proceedings of the House is
final and binding on all members.

"Under Article 122(2), the decision of the speaker in whom powers are vested to regulate the procedure and the Conduct of Business is final and binding on every member of the House. The validity of the speaker's decision adjourning the house on December 23, 2003 and later direction to resume its sittings cannot be inquired into on the ground of any irregularity of procedure," the bench said.

The court, however, made it clear that any illegal and unconstitutional procedure can be challenged in courts.

"If the impugned procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it would be open to be scrutinized in a court of law, though such scrutiny is prohibited if the complaint against the procedure is no more than that the procedure was irregular," the bench said.

The court said that in this case, resumption of sittings of the House in the new year after being adjourned in the previous year "by no stretch of imagination" could be characterised as commencement of new session.

"No such special address is needed, if a session is adjourned sine die in the previous year and the sittings of the same session is resumed in the next year," the bench said. 

"It is thus clear that whenever the House resumes after it is adjourned sine die, its resumption for the purpose of continuing its business does not amount to commencement of the session," the court said.