Abstract

In contemporary jurisprudence, the doctrine of judicial review has evolved to become a formidable safeguard against the arbitrary and unconstitutional exercise of power by state functionaries. The 2023 Winter Session of Parliament witnessed the unprecedented suspension of 146 Members of Parliament (MPs), raising concerns regarding procedural irregularities and the extent of judicial review permissible under Article 122 of the Indian Constitution. This paper undertakes a critical analysis of such suspensions to see if they constitute an ultra vires exercise of authority and warrant judicial review despite the constitutional bar under Article 122. The paper employs a doctrinal research methodology, to critically examine constitutional provisions, judicial precedents, academic discourse, and legislative frameworks to explore the scope of judicial intervention in parliamentary procedures. The paper critiques the discretionary powers vested in the presiding officers of both Houses of Parliament and the absence of an independent oversight mechanism to assess the reasoning and legitimacy of parliamentary suspensions. It further contends that where procedural irregularities undermine the deliberative and representative character of the legislature, they transcend the threshold of mere procedural matters and fall within the ambit of judicial review. This paper argues that the immunities conferred under Article 122 cannot serve as a cloak for procedural illegality or a violation of constitutional mandates. It advocates for the establishment of a parliamentary oversight committee to ensure that suspensions are reasoned, proportionate, and non-partisan. The paper calls for safeguards to prevent majoritarian dominance from eroding democratic values in order to uphold the legislative process as envisioned under the constitutional framework.

Keywords