Dear Editor,

A recent Supreme Court ruling in India relating to judicial review of parliamentary actions has relevance for Guyana and the rest of the Commonwealth. The case involves whether the court can review actions of the parliament and whether the parliament can discipline its members for irresponsible actions. The court ruled positively on both counts.

Through its ruling, the court upholds the right of Parliament to expel members who engage in misconduct. In making the ruling, the court strikes a balance between judicial restraint and respect for the powers of the legislative body to discipline its members.

Eleven MPs in India were expelled for accepting bribes (prima facie evidence existed against the MPs). They were caught in a sting operation. The Speaker of the house set up a multi-party committee to investigate their actions and to recommend punishment. The committee found them guilty and proceeded to expel them from parliament.

The expulsions were challenged mainly on the grounds that Parliament did not have the power to expel members. The court directed the parliament to respond to the lawsuit. The Speaker declared that the court has no jurisdiction in reviewing parliamentary actions. The court ruled that Parliament does have the power of expulsion. The power of Parliament to expel its members for misconduct was traced to the powers and privileges of the British House of Commons.

The House of Commons has expelled members on such grounds as bribery, corruption, falsification of accounts, and running away from the law; and its power has never been in doubt. Such a power, the court felt, formed part of the powers and privileges of the Indian Parliament to discipline its members and protect its own integrity, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution contains other specific provisions on membership and disqualification. The court has taken care to emphasize that the privileges of Parliament are not absolute or untramelled; members can be punished but not for contributing to debates. The court also deferred to the procedure followed by the parliament in constituting a special enquiry committee to investigate the conduct of the members.

The parliament and the nation have accepted the court’s ruling. In so doing, it is now clear that the Supreme court can review the actions of parliament. The constitution vested the power of review in the judiciary to guard against the violation of constitutional provisions. The decision holds that the courts can scrutinize “the validity of the action of the legislature trespassing on the fundamental rights of citizens.”

Incidentally, in the U.S, the Supreme Court can review the actions, laws, policies and programmes of the Congress and the President and have declared many laws unconstitutional.

The judiciary of any nation must have the power to interpret the constitution. It is the custodian of the constitution. Regardless of the powers claimed by the President and the parliament, the Supreme court must be the final arbiter of the constitution. There should be checks and balances among the three branches of government.

Yours faithfully,

Vishnu Bisram