Amarinder’s expulsion

Amarinder’s expulsionCase goes to benchR. SedhuramanLegal Correspondent
New Delhi, February 11A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear the case relating to the expulsion of former Chief Minister Amarinder Singh from the Punjab Assembly as it involves interpretation of Article 194 of the Constitution, which deals with the powers, privileges and immunities of lawmakers.
A three-Judge Bench headed by Justice B.N. Agarwal today referred Amarinder's petition to Chief Justice K.G.Balakrishnan for setting up the Constitution Bench after senior counsel K Parasaran, appearing for the former CM, questioned the powers of the Punjab Assembly to expel his client on September 10 last year.
The Captain was thrown out the House for the remaining period of the five-year term for his alleged involvement in the Amritsar Tmprovement Trust Land Exemption scam when he was the Chief Minister.
Parasaran contended that the assembly had assumed the powers of the investigator, judiciary, executive and the legislature while expelling and initiating action against Amarinder.
In fact, the House was not even competent to penalise Amarinder for breach of privilege, citing the charges of corruption, which had nothing to do with privileges.
“During the hearing, we are satisfied that interpretation of Article 194 and other related provisions of the Constitution of India is required for the disposal of the present cases. In terms of Article 145(3), this interpretation needs to be done by a Bench of five Judges. Let these cases be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders,” the Bench ruled shortly after the counsel had resumed his arguments. Justices GS Singhvi and Aftab Alam were the other two judges on the Bench.
No assembly could expel its member for breach of privilege allegedly committed during his tenure in the previous House and if this was possible, ruling parties would be able to throw out several members on the charge of committing such violations even decades ago.
Explaining his contention that the assembly had assumed the powers of the other wings of democracy, counsel Parasaran said the expulsion resolution had asked the Vigilance Department to find out where his client had stashed away the ill-gotten wealth.
This meant, the House had already arrived at the conclusion that his client had taken bribe, which could be done only by the investigator at the initial stage and later by the judiciary. By asking the vigilance to investigate, the House had assumed the role of the executive, he explained.
The privileges of the House were finalised afresh after every Assembly poll to the new House to keep all privileges that were available to the members of the previous House or to make changes to enable the MLAs to function on the floor without any extraneous interference.