Central Idea: Expulsion of Mahua Moitra

A Member of Parliament from West Bengal was expelled from the Lok Sabha over allegations of a cash-for-query scandal.
Her expulsion highlights the importance of maintaining strict ethical standards and parliamentary etiquette in legislative proceedings.

Parliamentary Etiquette and Rules

Expected Conduct of MPs: MPs must adhere to rules of parliamentary etiquette, such as not interrupting speeches, maintaining silence, and avoiding obstruction during debates.
Updated Rules for Modern Protests: In 1989, rules were updated to include prohibitions against shouting slogans, displaying placards, tearing documents, and using electronic devices for protest in the House.
Rajya Sabha’s Similar Rules: The Rajya Sabha, like the Lok Sabha, has similar rules to ensure smooth conduct of proceedings.

Presiding Officer’s Authority: The presiding officer of each House can direct an MP to withdraw from the chamber for disorderly conduct, resulting in absence for the day.
Naming and Suspension Process: MPs obstructing House business can be “named” by the presiding officer, leading to a possible suspension motion by the Parliamentary Affairs Minister.
Duration of Suspension: Suspensions can last until the end of the session.

Option for Judicial Review: The expelled MP has the option to challenge the expulsion in the Supreme Court, as explained by former Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary.
Constitutional Provisions: Article 122 of the Constitution provides immunity to parliamentary proceedings from judicial scrutiny based on procedural irregularity.
Scope for Judicial Review: Despite this immunity, the Supreme Court in the 2007 Raja Ram Pal case clarified that judicial review is possible in cases of substantive or gross illegality.

Case Background: Raja Ram Pal, a BSP leader, was among 12 MPs expelled in the 2005 cash-for-query scam.
Supreme Court’s Stance: The Court upheld the expulsion but noted that proceedings tainted by substantial illegality are open to judicial scrutiny.
Judicial Review of Parliamentary Actions: The Court affirmed its role in scrutinizing legislative actions that infringe on fundamental rights.

Powers and Privileges of Parliament: Article 105 deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament and its Members.
Judicial Scrutiny of Privilege Enforcement: The Court recognized that the enforcement of privilege by the legislature can be subject to judicial review, within certain constitutional limits.

Examining Privilege and Procedure: The court can scrutinize whether the privilege cited for expulsion existed and if proper procedures were followed.
Functioning of Committees: The roles of the Privileges Committee and Ethics Committee are distinct, focusing on investigating misconduct and ensuring dignity in the House.
Investigative Procedures: Proper investigative procedures, including the right to depose and cross-examine, are essential for fairness and truth-finding.

Article 20 of the Constitution: This article stipulates that punishment requires an existing law defining the act as an offense.
Case-Specific Issues: In the case of the expelled MP, issues like sharing Parliament login-passwords and accepting money for questions are examined for rule violations.
Breach of Privilege and Inquiry: Accepting money for asking questions in Parliament is a breach of privilege warranting inquiry by the Privileges Committee.

Ongoing Debate and Implications: The case continues to spark debate on the limits of parliamentary privilege, the role of the judiciary, and the ethical standards expected of elected representatives.
Balancing Authority and Rights: The expulsion case underscores the delicate balance between parliamentary authority and the rights of its members.
Importance of Judicial Oversight: The potential for judicial review emphasizes the importance of legal oversight in maintaining democratic principles and fairness in legislative processes.