Robust judicial statesmanship. That is how I would characterise the judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the cash-for-questions cases. At one time when these cases were filed ominous consequences were foreshadowed, a possible ugly confrontation between the two great organs of state. But the clouds have blown away. As to which body (or institution) is more significant under the Constitution, Parliament and state legislatures on the one hand or the courts on the other, the answer now given in the judgment of January 10 is ‘neither’. It is the Constitution alone that is supreme, but the final authority on the interpretation of any of its provisions is neither Parliament nor any state legislature. It is the Supreme Court of India.

The cash-for-questions scandal surfaced in December 2005, when a television channel presented (thanks to the somewhat dubious advantages of modern technology!) the result of a ‘sting operation’ in which there was offered both audio and visual evidence of particular members of Parliament accepting money for questions to be asked in the House during Question Hour. The Lok Sabha promptly constituted a committee to inquire into this and, on being satisfied that a ‘scandal’ had been correctly exposed by the media, it passed resolutions expelling these members. The errant members then filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court, and the question about the ‘privileges’ of Parliament was squarely raised.

Our Constitution makes provision for vacation of seats in Parliament (Article 101) and for disqualification of its members (Article 102). Article 102 (e) says that a person shall be disqualified from being a member of either House of Parliament “if so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament”. Disqualification laws have been made by Parliament, but no law has yet been made by Parliament, enabling either of the Houses to expel their own members for proven misconduct . So, ‘expulsion’ could only be (if at all) under the article dealing with powers, privileges and immunities (Article 105).

... contd.