SC reserves verdict in cash-for-query scam

New Delhi, Sep 28: The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on petitions filed by 11 MPs challenging their expulsion for their alleged involvement in cash-for-query scam.

A Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal reserved the judgment on conclusion of marathon arguments spread over three weeks.

Other judges on the bench are Justices K G Balakrishnan, C K Thakker, R V Raveendran and D K Jain.

Petitioners include Raja Ram Pal, Suresh Chandel, Pradeep Gandhi, Yashwant Girdhar Mahajan, Anna Saheb M K Patil, Chandra P Singh, Manoj Kumar and another,Ram Sewak Singh, Lal Chandra Kol, all expelled members of Lok Sabha and Dr. Chattra Pal Singh and Swami Sakhshi Maharaj, the two members of Rajya Sabha.

Senior Counsel Ram Jethmalani and P N Lekhi appearing for the petitioners contended that the Speaker has no power to expel sitting members of the House. Peoples' mandate can not be terminated by the House and the Constitution of India does not have any provision for expelling a sitting member of Parliament he can only be disqualified.

Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium appearing for the Attorney General of India, however contended that the House has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and control the conduct of its members. The House can also punish its erring member whose conduct is found below the dignity of the House. The jurisdiction and privilege of the House in this regard is exclusive and courts have no power to subject such decisions to judicial scrutiny.

Subramanium had also contended that courts have no jurisdiction to sit over the collective wisdom of the House in punishing its member who has been caught taking bribes for putting problems of its electorate before the House for redressal.

Senior counsel T R Andhiyarjuna appearing for central government had also contended that the Indian Parliament like British Parliament has the exclusive jurisdiction and privilege to discipline its erring members and if any of the members brought disrepute to the dignity of the House he or she can even be expelled and such actions are not amenable to judicial review.

Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee had refused to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the apex court when the court decided to entertain the petitions of the expelled MPs who were expelled by the Speaker and Chairman of Rajya Sabha when they were caught on camera accepting money for raising questions in the house in a sting operation conducted by private TV News Channel. 10 members of Lok Sabha were expelled on Dec.

23,2005.

The apex court had also restrained the Election Commission of India from holding by-elections to the ten Lok Sabha seats which had fallen vacant due to the expulsion of MPs withour prior permission of the court. The elections to these seats are yet to be held.

The court decided to examine the issue as there is no authentic prouncement on the issue by the apex court till date.

It was also submitted on behalf of the Attorney General that Parliament was not a body inferior to the courts. An Administrative Tribunal in whom statutory jurisdiction has been vested can certainly be subjected to judicial review to discover errors of fact or errors of law within its jurisdiction. Parliament can not be attributed jurisdictional errors.

Subramanum had also contended that an expelled MP can contest by- election but a disqualified member of the House is debarred from re-contesting the elections.

UNI