New Delhi, March 29 (Inditop.com) The Constitution vests the presiding officer of any house of parliament with the power to regulate its procedure and business, and courts cannot interfere with it, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan gave this ruling while dismissing a lawsuit by former Lok Sabha member Ramdas Athawale. The Republican Party of India leader had questioned erstwhile speaker Manohar Joshi’s decision to begin the first parliament session in the year 2004 without the presidential address.
The 14th session of the 13th Lok Sabha commenced on Dec 2, 2003, and was adjourned sine die on Dec 23. Joshi later on Jan 20, 2004, notified that the 14th session will resume from Jan 29 and the first session of the new year will not be addressed by the president.
Athawale contended that Article 87 (1) of the Constitution provided for mandatory address by the president for the first session in a new year and no session adjourned sine die in the preceding year could be resumed in a new year.
As per the constitutional provisions, a new year has to mandatorily start with a new session, complete with the joint presidential address to both houses, Athawale said.
But the bench, which also included Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice R.V. Raveendran, Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Justice P. Sathasivam, dismissed Athawale’s plea.
“Under Article 122(2) of the Constitution, the decision of the Speaker in whom the powers are vested to regulate the procedure and the conduct of business is final and binding on every member of the house,” ruled the bench.
Athawale claimed the sittings of the Lok Sabha starting Jan 29, 2004, were unconstitutional and the proceedings and the outcome of the same should be scrapped.
The bench, however, held that “the business transacted and the validity of the proceedings after resumption of the sittings of the house pursuant to the directions of the speaker cannot be inquired into by courts.”
“No decision of the Speaker can be challenged by a member of the house, complaining of mere irregularity in procedure in the conduct of the business,” the bench said.
“Such decisions are not subject to the jurisdiction of any court and they are immune from challenges,” said the bench.
The bench also ruled that there was no violation of any fundamental right of a member of a house due to conduct of business of the house in one manner or the other.
