Article 122 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that upholds the principle of separation of powers and protects the autonomy and dignity of the Parliament. It prevents courts from interfering with the internal proceedings of Parliament, particularly concerning procedural matters. This article, along with provisions relating to parliamentary privileges, ensures that the legislative body can function independently without undue judicial scrutiny of its procedural conduct.
This article is mirrored by Article 212, which makes similar provisions for the State Legislatures, reinforcing the federal structure and legislative independence at the state level as well. Understanding Article 122 is vital for comprehending the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature under the Indian constitutional scheme.
Original Text
122. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament.
(1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.
Detailed Explanation
Article 122 is divided into two clauses, each addressing a different aspect of judicial non-interference in parliamentary affairs.
Clause (1): This clause states that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament cannot be challenged in a court of law merely on the ground of an alleged irregularity of procedure.
- “Proceedings in Parliament”: This term refers to actions taken within the Parliament during its sessions, such as debates, passing of bills, voting, decisions on internal matters, etc.
- “Validity… shall not be called in question”: This signifies that courts cannot entertain a challenge regarding the legality or correctness of parliamentary proceedings.
- “On the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure”: This is the key limitation on the court’s power. The bar applies only when the challenge is based on a procedural irregularity. It implies that if the action taken by Parliament is unconstitutional or illegal in substance (not just procedurally flawed), courts might still have the power to intervene. The distinction is between a mere deviation from the established rules of procedure (irregularity) and an action that is outside the constitutional limits or violates a fundamental law (illegality/unconstitutionality). For example, if Parliament violates a constitutional provision while passing a law, that law can be challenged in court on grounds of unconstitutionality, not just procedural irregularity.
Clause (2): This clause grants immunity to officers and members of Parliament who are vested with powers for regulating procedure, conducting business, or maintaining order within Parliament. It states that such individuals shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of those powers.
- “Officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution…”: This primarily refers to presiding officers like the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairman, or any other person presiding over the House or discharging functions related to procedure, conduct of business, or maintenance of order. It also includes committee chairpersons and potentially other officials exercising similar delegated powers.
- “For regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order”: This specifies the nature of the powers covered by the immunity. These are powers essential for the smooth and orderly functioning of the House.
- “Shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers”: This means courts cannot review the actions of these officers when they are performing their duties related to procedure, conduct of business, or maintaining order. For example, a ruling by the Speaker on a point of order, the conduct of voting, or disciplinary action against a member for disorderly conduct falls within this protected sphere.
The rationale behind Article 122 is to protect the independence of the legislature. If courts were allowed to scrutinize every procedural step taken by Parliament or the rulings of its presiding officers on procedural matters, it would lead to constant litigation, hinder legislative work, and violate the separation of powers. However, this immunity is not absolute and is confined to matters of procedural irregularity and the exercise of specific procedural/regulatory powers by officers. Actions that are substantively illegal, unconstitutional, or mala fide (done in bad faith) may still be subject to judicial review, although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in parliamentary matters unless there is a clear constitutional violation.
Detailed Notes
- Article 122 falls under Part V (The Union), Chapter II (Parliament) of the Indian Constitution.
- It deals with the relationship between the Judiciary and the Legislature concerning parliamentary proceedings.
- Clause (1):
- Prevents courts from questioning the validity of parliamentary proceedings.
- The bar on judicial inquiry is limited to cases based on alleged irregularity of procedure.
- It does not prevent courts from inquiring into the legality or constitutionality of a parliamentary action or law, even if it occurred during a parliamentary proceeding.
- Distinction between “irregularity of procedure” and “illegality/unconstitutionality of substance”. Courts are barred from the former but not necessarily the latter.
- Example: If a Bill is passed without following the correct voting procedure as per rules, a court cannot usually intervene based on this procedural flaw (barred by Art 122(1)). However, if a law passed violates a fundamental right or exceeds Parliament’s legislative competence, courts can strike it down on those substantive grounds.
- Clause (2):
- Grants immunity to officers and members of Parliament performing specific duties.
- Immunity applies to those vested with powers for regulating procedure, conducting business, or maintaining order in Parliament.
- Primarily covers presiding officers (Speaker, Chairman, etc.) and others acting under their authority for these purposes.
- These individuals are not subject to the jurisdiction of any court regarding the exercise of these specific powers.
- Example: A Speaker’s decision to suspend a member for disorderly conduct, or a ruling on the admissibility of a motion, cannot typically be challenged in court (barred by Art 122(2)).
- This immunity is crucial for the presiding officers to manage the House effectively and maintain discipline without fear of judicial intervention in routine procedural matters.
- The article reinforces the principle of separation of powers.
- It protects the autonomy and dignity of the Parliament as a legislative body.
- It is read in conjunction with Article 105 (Privileges of Parliament) and Article 121 (Restriction on discussion in Parliament regarding judicial conduct).
- Article 212 is the analogous provision for State Legislatures.
- Judicial interpretation (e.g., in cases like M.S. Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner) has clarified that while courts cannot inquire into procedural irregularities, they may intervene if the action taken by Parliament or its officers is clearly unconstitutional, illegal, without jurisdiction, or vitiated by mala fides, although the threshold for intervention in internal parliamentary matters is very high.
- The scope of “proceedings in Parliament” is broad but relates to the business transacted within the houses.
Additional Comments
- The term “proceedings in Parliament” has been interpreted broadly by courts to include actions within the Houses and their committees that are essential for legislative business.
- The protection under Article 122(1) is specifically against challenges based on “irregularity of procedure”. It does not protect against challenges based on the unconstitutionality of the substance of a law or decision.
- The immunity under Article 122(2) is limited to the exercise of powers related to procedure, conduct of business, and maintaining order. It does not protect officers or members if they act outside these specific powers or in a manner that is clearly unconstitutional.
- The Supreme Court has held that while it will not interfere with procedural irregularities of Parliament, it retains the power to examine whether a procedure prescribed by the Constitution has been followed, or whether the action taken is unconstitutional or illegal.
- This article reflects the common law principle developed in England that courts should not interfere with the internal workings of Parliament.
- Understanding the delicate balance between parliamentary privilege/autonomy (protected by Art 105, 122) and judicial review (power of courts, often related to unconstitutionality) is key for UPSC.
Summary
Article 122 of the Indian Constitution restricts courts from inquiring into the validity of proceedings in Parliament solely on the grounds of alleged procedural irregularity. It also grants immunity to officers and members of Parliament from judicial scrutiny regarding the exercise of their powers to regulate procedure, conduct business, or maintain order within Parliament. This article safeguards the autonomy and smooth functioning of the legislature by preventing undue judicial interference in its internal, procedural matters, while generally not barring review of actions that are unconstitutional or illegal in substance.