Mahua Moitra moves SC: How top court ruled on 2005 MP disqualification

In a sting operation carried out by a digital platform, 11 MPs were shown to be accepting bribes in exchange of asking questions in the Parliament in 2005.

Calling her expulsion from the Lok Sabha "unjust, unfair and arbitrary" the now-suspended TMC leader Mahua Moitra moved the Supreme Court on Monday challenging the Lower House’s decision. In her plea, she also labelled the decision being against the principle of ‘natural justice.’

Moitra was ousted from the Parliament as an MP after the Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha found her guilty of jeopardising national security by sharing her parliamentary portal's login credentials with businessman Darshan Hiranandani.

Moitra was accused of posing several queries in the Parliament concerning the Adani group of companies at the behest of a rival businessman Hiranandani.

The current saga has echoes of the cash-for-query episode that rocked the Parliament in 2005 and went to the Supreme Court.

In 2005, the second year of the newly-elected Manmohan Singh government, 11 MPs were expelled from the Parliament on similar grounds.

The apex court, in what was hailed as a landmark judgement, had upheld the Parliament’s decision to expel these MPs.

What was the cash-for-query scam of 2005

In a sting operation carried out by a digital platform, 11 MPs were shown to be accepting bribes in exchange of asking questions in the Parliament.

In December 2005, a Parliamentary committee was formed which found that the conduct of these MPs “was unethical and unbecoming of members of Parliament.” The 10 MPs in the Lower House, namely Annasaheb M K Patil, Y G Mahajan, Pradeep Gandhi, Suresh Chandel and CP Singh (from BJP), NK Kushwaha, Raja Ram Pal and LC Kol (from BSP), Ramsevak Singh (Congress) and Manoj Kumar (RJD), were suspended. The Upper House soon followed suit expelling BJP’s C S Lodha, the only Rajya Sabha member involved in the episode.

These members then knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court contesting their expulsion.

What the Supreme Court said

In a landmark judgement in 2007, the top court dismissed the petitions challenging the expulsions calling the move a ‘self-protection exercise’ by the Parliament. A five-judge constitution bench led by the then Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal upheld the expulsion with a 4-1 majority verdict.

The court had ruled that it would “not interfere so long as there is some relevant material sustaining the action (of Parliament)”.

However, the court also noted that the actions of the Parliament were under judicial review. At the same time, the court had also said that judicial review did not mean that the jurisdiction of the legislature was being usurped by the court.

“The Judicature is not prevented from scrutinising the validity of the action of the legislature trespassing on the fundamental rights conferred on the citizens… 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,” the court had ruled.

The landmark ruling had paved the way to judge the extent and scope of uncodified parliamentary privileges under Article 105.

Article 105 of the Constitution deals with “powers, privileges, etc of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof." This is the provision that gives MPs immunity from legal action for any statement made, or act done in the course of their duties.

SC in its 2007 ruling had denied the concept of ‘absolute immunity’ saying, “there is no basis to claim… absolute immunity to the Parliamentary proceedings in Article 105(3) of the Constitution.”