The Legislature: Parliament and State Assemblies notes — Unit 2

Article 79 establishes the Parliament of India, consisting of three parts: The President, the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), and the House of the People (Lok Sabha). The President is an integral part of Parliament, even though he does not sit in it, because no bill can become law without his assent.

⇒1.1 The Bicameral Rationale

Why have two houses?

The Constitution lays down different procedures for different types of bills. The most critical distinction is between Ordinary Bills and Money Bills.

⇒2.1 Ordinary Bills (Articles 107 & 108)

• Can be introduced in either House.
• Must be passed by both Houses.
• Deadlock: If one House rejects the bill, or delays it for 6 months, or disagrees on amendments, a deadlock occurs.
• Joint Sitting (Art 108): The President can summon a joint sitting of both Houses to resolve the deadlock. Because the Lok Sabha has double the members, its will usually prevails.

⇒2.2 Money Bills (Articles 109 & 110)

A Money Bill exclusively deals with taxes, borrowing money, or the Consolidated Fund of India. The Lok Sabha has absolute supremacy over Money Bills.

• Can ONLY be introduced in the Lok Sabha, and only on the recommendation of the President.
• Speaker's Certificate: The Speaker's decision on whether a bill is a Money Bill is final (Art 110(3)).
• Rajya Sabha's Powerlessness: The Rajya Sabha cannot reject or amend a Money Bill. It can only make 'recommendations' and must return the bill within 14 days. If it doesn't, the bill is deemed passed.
• No Joint Sitting: There can never be a joint sitting for a Money Bill.

For Parliament to function fearlessly, its members are granted special rights, immunities, and exemptions called 'Privileges'. Article 105 covers Parliament, and Article 194 covers State Legislatures.

⇒3.1 Explicit Privileges in the Constitution

• 1. Freedom of Speech [Art 105(1)]: Complete freedom of speech inside the House.
• 2. Immunity from Court Proceedings [Art 105(2)]: No MP can be sued in any court for anything said or any vote given inside Parliament. This immunity is absolute.
• 3. Publication Immunity: No person is liable for publishing reports/papers under the authority of the House.

⇒3.2 Uncodified Privileges

The Constitution states that all other privileges shall be the same as those of the British House of Commons (until Parliament defines them by law). Parliament has deliberately never codified them to keep its powers flexible. These include:

• Right to exclude strangers from secret sessions.
• Right to punish members and outsiders for Breach of Privilege or Contempt of the House (including sending them to jail).

What happens when a citizen publishes an article criticizing a Minister, and the Legislature orders the citizen to be jailed for 'Contempt of the House'? Does the citizen's Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech) override the Legislature's uncodified privileges?

⇒The Searchlight Case (M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, 1959)

• Facts: The editor of 'Searchlight' newspaper published portions of a Bihar Assembly speech that the Speaker had ordered to be expunged (deleted). The Assembly issued a notice to jail him for breach of privilege. He argued it violated his Art 19(1)(a) freedom of press.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Legislature. The SC held that Article 19(1)(a) is a general provision, while Article 194(3) (Privileges) is a special provision. The special provision prevails. The uncodified privileges of the House override the fundamental right to free speech.

⇒The U.P. Assembly Case (In Re Article 143, 1965)

The UP Assembly jailed a citizen for contempt. The High Court granted him bail. Furious, the Assembly issued arrest warrants against the High Court Judges! The matter was referred to the SC.

• Judgment: The SC modified its harsh stance. It held that while Privileges might override Art 19, they DO NOT override Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) or Article 32 (Right to approach the SC). The courts have the power to review if the legislature's arrest warrant violated Article 21.

⇒Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007)

A sting operation caught 11 MPs taking cash bribes to ask specific questions in Parliament. Both Houses expelled the MPs immediately. The expelled MPs went to the Supreme Court, arguing that Parliament had no power to expel its own members, only to suspend them.

The Landmark Judgment:

• The Supreme Court upheld the expulsions.
• The Court confirmed that Parliament does possess the privilege and power to expel its members for gross misconduct.
• The Big Shift: The SC boldly declared that Parliamentary Privileges are NOT immune from Judicial Review. The courts cannot interfere in minor procedural irregularities, but if Parliament's actions are unconstitutional, arbitrary, or grossly illegal, the Supreme Court can strike them down.

In the 1960s and 70s, Indian politics was plagued by 'Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram'—MLAs constantly switching parties for bribes and ministerial posts, leading to unstable governments. To stop this, the 52nd Constitutional Amendment (1985) added the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law).

⇒6.1 Grounds for Disqualification

An MP or MLA is disqualified from the House if:

• 1. Voluntary Giving Up: If they voluntarily give up the membership of their political party.
• 2. Defying the Whip: If they vote (or abstain from voting) in the House against the direction issued by their political party, without prior permission.
• 3. Independent Members: If an independently elected member joins any political party after the election.
• 4. Nominated Members: If a nominated member joins any political party after 6 months from taking their seat.

⇒6.2 The Exception: Merger

A member is NOT disqualified if their original political party merges with another party, AND at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the legislature party agree to the merger. (Note: Originally, a 1/3rd split was allowed, but the 91st Amendment in 2003 deleted the split provision because it legalized mass defections).

⇒6.3 The Deciding Authority

Who decides if an MP has defected? The Speaker or the Chairman of the House.

Originally, the Tenth Schedule stated that the Speaker's decision is final and no court shall have any jurisdiction in this matter. This led to massive controversies, as Speakers are often biased toward their own ruling party.

The constitutional validity of the Anti-Defection Law was challenged in the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu.

⇒The SC Judgment

• Validity Upheld: The SC upheld the Anti-Defection Law as constitutionally valid. It stated that the evil of political defections must be combated.
• Judicial Review Reinstated: The SC struck down the clause that barred the jurisdiction of courts. The Court declared that when deciding defection cases, the Speaker acts as a Tribunal. Therefore, the Speaker's final decision is absolutely subject to Judicial Review by the High Courts and Supreme Court on grounds of mala fides, perversity, or violation of constitutional mandates.
• No Interlocutory Interference: However, the courts cannot interfere while the Speaker is deciding. They can only review the decision after the Speaker passes the final order.

⇒Summary of Master Concepts

• Money Bill (Art 110): Lok Sabha has total supremacy. Rajya Sabha can only delay for 14 days. Speaker's certificate is final.
• Privileges (Art 105): MPs have absolute immunity for speech/votes inside Parliament. Privileges override Art 19(1)(a) (Searchlight), but do not override Art 21 (UP Assembly Case).
• Judicial Review: Parliament is not immune from judicial review if its actions are unconstitutional (Raja Ram Pal).
• Anti-Defection (10th Sch): Disqualifies members for party hopping or defying whips. The Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohan).

⇒University Exam Tips for this Unit (Premium Advice)

• Money vs Ordinary Bills: When differentiating them, structure your answer around: Introduction, RS powers, Joint Sitting, and the Speaker's certificate. A table format fetches maximum marks.
• The Privileges Clash: A 20-mark essay question is often asked on the clash between Privileges and Fundamental Rights. You must trace the evolution from Searchlight (Privileges win) to UP Assembly (Art 21 wins) to Raja Ram Pal (Courts can review).
• Kihoto Hollohan is Mandatory: Never write an answer on the Anti-Defection law without dedicating a massive paragraph to Kihoto Hollohan. Emphasize that the Speaker acts as a 'Tribunal', which is the sole reason courts have jurisdiction.