Courts not to Inquire into Proceedings of Parliament*

Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Parliament and the State Legislatures can regulate their own procedure. The validity of any proceedings in either House of Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be questioned before a court of law on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure [Arts. 122(1) and 212(1); M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha (Searchlight Case-Second Judgment), A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1186]. Apart from Parliament or the State Legislatures, the Presiding Officer of each House or any other officer or member of Parliament or State Legislature who is for the time being vested with the powers to regulate procedure or the conduct of business or to maintain order in, or to enforce or carry out the decision of, either House of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, is not subject tot he jurisdiction of the Courts in exercise of those powers [Arts. 122(2) and 105(3) C. Shrikishen v. State of Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1956 Hyderabad 186].

The Courts have no jurisdiction to issue a writ, direction or order relating to a matter in respect of what is done in the House or which affects the internal affairs of the House. Similarly, the Presiding Officer is also not subject to the jurisdiction of any court for failure to exercise his power to regulate the proceedings of the House

[ Surendra Mohanty v. Nabakrishna Choudhury, A.I.R. 1958 Orissa 319] . The Constitution guarantees immunity from proceedings in any court in respect of "anything" said in the House or any committee thereof, and "anything" has been held to be equivalent to "everything" [ Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1573. For `Courts of Law and Matters of Privilege', see Chapter XI].

[ *Source: Page No. 944 to 945 of Practice and Procedure of Parliament. By Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap; Fourth Edition 1991. Published for Lok Sabha Secretariat ]