Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitution - 2023 - 07 - 20 - 13 - 59 - 45 - 417
Constitution - 2023 - 07 - 20 - 13 - 59 - 45 - 417
Constitution - 2023 - 07 - 20 - 13 - 59 - 45 - 417
Prestdent not bound such consultation. In S.lh Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982SC 149
case transfer casö the Supretne Court agreccl with the opinion in
took the that in substance the opinions of the Chief Justice of India and the Chief
the Court merelyconsultativeand the power of appointment resides solely and
the Central government. This meant that executive had supremacy_in appointment of
The Of SORtnment could only be challenged on the grounds of mala fides or based on
considerations. In effect decision in S.P. Gupta 's case gave absolute primacy to the government
-o.o.:ntrnent ofiud•es. This also meant that the President's power to appoint judges OfSupreme Court
of formal nature. The President acted in this matter as in any other matters i.e. on the adviceof
Council of Ministers.
In this case Supreme Court overruled the decision in S.P. Gupta's case. The court
held that in the
matters of appointment of judges of Supreme Court and High Courts the Chief Justice
of India should
have primacy. The court held that the question of selection of judges has to be
considered in the light of
achieving the constitutional purpose of selecting the best and suitable composition
for the court. The court
held that the Chief Justice of India is best equipped to know and assessthe worth
of the candidate. It is also
necessaryto eliminate political influence
2. With regard to the appointment of SupremeCourt Judge,and transfer of a High Court Judge
the Chief Justice of India should consult a collegium of four seniormostJudges of the Supreme
Court. The collegiums must include successor Chief Justice of India. If two Judges give adverse
opinion then the ChiefJustice should not send the opinion to the government. Opinion of all
members of the collegiums must be in writing.
3. Viewof such Supreme Court judge who hails from the High Court from where the person
recommended comes must be obtained in writing for the consideration of the collegiums.
4. In regard to the appointment of High Court Judge the collegium should consist of Chief Justice
of India and two senior most Judge.The recommendations of the collegiums should be based
on consensus and unless it is in conformity with the opinion of Chief Justice of India,
recommendationshould not be made.
5. Supreme Court made it clear that recommendation for appointment without following the
consultation process is not binding on the government.
National Judicial Appointments Commission [99thConstitution Amendment, 20141:Law Com-
in its 121streport in 1987 advocated the setting up of a Judicial Commission for appointment of
mission
Later,National Commission to Reviewthe Working of the Constitution in its report submitted in
judges•
as to
2002Opinedthat a National Judicial Commission should be constituted for making recommendation
theappointmentof judges of superior court.
Commission vide 99thConstitution
In 2014union government setup National Judicial Appointments
and 128 and inserted Articles 124A 124B and 124C.
Amendment,2014. It amended Articles 124(2). 127
Judge of the Supreme Court is to be appointed by
Accordingto new provision under Article 124(2)every
ointments Commission. Article 124Apro-
thePresidenton the recommendation of National udicialA
Examinations : Volume//
A G'(tdc to.ludt(ia/ St•tviüd€
Mains
(c) He has been for atleast 10 years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such courts in
succession; or
(d) He is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
Oath
Article 124(6)provides that every person appointed to be a Judge of Supreme Court shall,
before he
enters upon his office, make and subscribebefore the President or some other ersona
ointed in that
behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out in Third
Schedule.
Tenure, Resignation and Removal of Judges
Article 124(2)provides that a Judge of Supreme Court holds the
office until he attains the age Of65
vears. The age of a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be determined
by such authority and in such manner
as the Parliament may by law provide.
Removal of Judges
Question of removal of judge is of great importance.
This question is intrinsically linked with the
independence of judiciary. It is because, if the removal
process is made very easy and
the power is given to
160 Samanh Agawal Bcx)ks
Constitutiono//ndia
directcontrol of executive,
providc« that a Judge tnay bc rcmovcd from his office in the manner provided in
124(4).Articlc 124(4)pvovidccthc proccduvc for tctnoval of a Supreme Court Judge. It lays down
theludgcofthc Suprcmc Coutt shall bc rctnovcd by an ordcr of thc President only on the ground of
and incapacity. The word 'provcd' indicatc that thc address can bc presented by the
only aficr thc allcgcd charge of misbchavior or incapacity against a judge has been investigated,
and establishedby an irnpartial tribunal.
proccdurc: The order of the President can only be passed when it has been addressed to both
of Parliament in the same session. The address must be supported by a majority of total member-
shipof that House and also by maiority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present
voting.Article 124(5) further provides that Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the
of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehavior or incapacity of a Judge
parliament has passed Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,which lays down the procedure for removal of the
supremeCourt and High Court Judge. It regulatesthe procedure for investigation and proof of misbe-
or Incapacity of judge for presenting an address by the Houses of Parliament.
A notice of the motion for presenting an addressfor removal may be given by 100 members of the
or
LokSabhaor 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.The Speakeror Chairman may either admit the motion
refuseto admit the motion. If the motion is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman constitutes a committee
consistingof a Supreme Court Judge, a ChiefJustice of High Court and a distinguished jurist. The com-
mitte€frames definite charges against the judge. A reasonable opportunity of being heard along with
opportunityto cross-examine witnesses is given to the concerned judge.
After the completion of inquiry the committee presents the report to the concerned House of Parlia-
ment In this scenario, following two possibilities are present:-
Contempt of court is characterized either as civil or criminal. Civil contempt is any willful disobedi-
ence of an order of court to do or to abstain from doing any act. Criminal contempt includes outrages on
judges in open court, defiant disobedienceof judgesin the court, casting unwarranted, uncalled for and
unjustified aspersions on the judges in discharge of judicial functions.
Contempt of court is not committed if a person publishesany fair comment on the merits of any
case, but in the guise of criticism of a judgment, personal criticism of judge is not permissible. Supreme
Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie, (2014)12SCC 344clarifiedthat no limitation can be
read into Article 129 of the Constitution. Supreme Court has unlimited power to compel obedience and
observance of its orders. [Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014)8 SCC 4701
Courtin Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 1998SC 18950b
the palliatncnt can tnake law undet lintty 77 I with regard to the contempt of Supreme
d prescribe the procedure to be (V)llowcd,tnaximum punishment and otwr matters. How-
theParliamentcannot abtÅdgcot extinguish the or power con ferrcd on Supreme Cnurt by
to punish for it« contetnpt is inherent in the court by virtue of being a court of
OriginalJurisdiction
is essential to
In a federal polity the inter-governmentaldisputes are bound to arise, Therefore, it
Supreme Court
providean adjudicatory mechanism for resolution of such disputes, Article 131 authorizes
tosettleinter€overnmentaldisputes.Supreme(hurt in State of Karnataka v. Union of India, AIR 1978
SC68 held that Article 131 is a necessary concomitant of a federal or a quasi federal form of government.
Article 131 provides that the Supreme Court shall have the exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction in the follow-
ing matters if the dispute involves any o n which the existence or extent ofa legal
right depends.
or
shouldbe given by High Court when the question is of such pervasiveimport and deep significance
datinHigh Court's judgment it needs to be settled by the highest court of the country.
(a) Has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accusedperson and sentenced him to death;
or
subordinate to its authority and has
(b) Has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court
him to death; or
in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced
for appeal to the Supreme Court.
(c) Certifies under Article 134-Athat the case is a fit one
165
Samadh Agawal mx»ks
VolumeIl
Mains Eraminations :
A Comp•ndiomcGuide toJudicial Setwiccs
SC 415 hcld that certificate under this
Supreme Court in Singh v. State, AIR 1953 rticl
decision is erroneous. It is
should not bc granted as a matter of course on the tocrc ground that thc
Mohanlal v. State of to b
granted only when certain exceptionaland specialcircurnstanccscxist.In Gujarat
grantcd whcn a casc involves a substantial
AIR SC 733 Suprctnc court held that a certificate should bc
question of law and not merc question of fact.
Article 136 uses the phrase 'any court' therefore it empowersthe court to hear appeals not only from
the High Court but also from the subordinate courts if a situation demands. In this connection, SUPreme
Court in Rajendra Kumar v. State, AIR 1980SC 1510observedthat the plenary jurisdiction OfSUpreme
Court to grant leave and hear appeals against any order of a court or tribunal confers power of judicial
superintendence over all courts and tribunals including subordinatecourts.
The word Corder' used in Article 136 is not qualified by adjective'final'. Thus, Supreme Court has the
power to har appeal even from an interlocutory or interim order. However,in practice the Supreme Court
ordinarily does not grant leaveto appealfrom an interlocutoryorder [seeGodfrey Phillips India Limited
v. GimarFoæ and Beverages (P) Ltd., (1998)9 SCC 531].
Article 136 does not define the nature of proceedingsfrom which the Supreme Court may hear
appeals. It can hear appeal from any kind of proceedingslike civil, criminal, tax matters, revenue matters,
labour matters etc. Supreme Court in Arunachalam v. PSR Setharathnam, AIR 1979SC 1406held that
the exercise of the power of Supreme Court under Article 136 is not circumscribed by any limitation as to
who may invoke it. Thus, the Special Leave Petition can be filed by a party to the decision and it can also be
filed by a party who though not a party to the impugned decision,but is adverselyaffected by such decision•
Contti/"tion o/ India
of SLP: It been held in Rapil Me/tr;/ v, t/n/on of fnd/9, 2 qCC 262 that
is with tea«ons. thete a tncrger of the orclrrgof the court below with the order
136(2)pt•ovidcsthat special Icavcto appeal shall not be rnaintainable to ant/ Judgment, decree,
ct.,nination,scntcncc ov passed ov tnadc by any court or tribunal constituted by
Act
;umcd.totccs.
IAvticlc 1431
AdvisoryJurisdiction
Accordingto Avticlc 143 if at any time it appcars to thc Prcsidcnt that:-
(a) A question of law or fact has arisen or is likcly to arise, and
(b) The question is of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the
opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question for the Advisory opinion of
the Court and the Court may after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion.
SupremeCourt in re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958SC 956, has held that the court is not bound
the
to answera reference made to it by the President. The use of the word 'ma/ in Article 143(1) shows that
In re
supremeCourt is not bound to give advisory opinion in every case in which reference is made.
refuse to
special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1 Supreme Court reiterated that the court may
Pover of review
made by the Parliament or any rule made
Ardcle 137 provides that subject to the provisions of any law
judgment pronounced or order
under Article 145,the SupremeCourt shall have powerto reviewany
made by it In S. Nagraj v. State of Kamataka, (1993)Supp. 4 SCC 595 Supreme Court held that review
literally and judicially means re-examination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the univer-
sal acceptance of human fallibility. Rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principle that
justice is above all.
Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Govemor of Delhi, AIR 1980SC 674 madeit
clear that a _partyis not entitled to see reviewof a judgment merely for the purpose of re-hearing and a
fresh decision of the case,The normal principle is that the judgment delivered is final and the departure is
justified only when the circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
In Surendra Koli v. State of U.P., (2014)16 SCC 716 Supreme Court held that review petitions can only
be allowed by Supreme Court on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and when such error
may lead to miscarriage of justice. On same lines in Lily 'Ihomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650
Supreme Court held that power of reviewcan be exercisedfor correction of mistake and not to substitute
a view. It cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.
2.
Mistakeor error apparent on the face of record;
1. The grounds stated in the curative petition must have been taken earlier in the review petition;
2. A senior advocate must satisfy that the above requirements have been fulfilled;
3. If the court comes to a conclusion that the petition is without any merit and is vexatious, exemplary
cost may be imposed on the petitioner;
4. The petition has first to be circulated to a bench of three senior-most judges and the judges who
passed the judgment complained of. If a majority of these judges conclude that the matter needs
to be heard, it should be listed before the same bench.
Lawdeclaredby Supreme Court to be binding on all courts and Doctrine of Stare Decisis
Article141 provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within
the territoryof India. Therefore, all courts are bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Judgmentsof Supreme Court constitute the source of law [All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh v. All
India Reporter Limited, AIR 1988SC 13251.Supreme Court in CCE v. Dunlop India Limited, AIR
1985SC 330 observed that in a hierarchical system of courts, it is necessary for each lower tier, including
HighCourt to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers. The better wisdom of the court below must
yieldto higher wisdom of the court above.
A Compendious Ggide toJudicial SOT'ictsMains Examinations : VolumeIl
(
cfc,
time fot holding election by the cxpiration
fill President. Jn
AH to thnt of
outgoing continues
to
Ihrqidcnt by nny rcnqon, noted that in
conducting the of new is to
the senior-most
if his office is also vacant, judge
President is vacant, the ChiefJustice of India (or
the President.
discharges the functions of
Supreme Court available) acts as the President or
of the President
President are not limited to 'executive
President exercisesvery broad functions. The powers of
ers' but it also extends to judicial as well as legislativepowers..
Executive Legislative
Powers
of
President
Financial Judicial
(ii) He appoints the prime Minister and the other ministers. They hold office during his pleasure
[Article
( ,'onctit'tti0'?
o/ India
appoints of
India,
and Auditor
and
of
the (
Un,on
and
can appoint a comn)ission of etc.
to investigate
classes. [Articles into the
338, 338A conditions of SQ, STSand other
and
can appoint an
council to
administers the and interstate
Union
through by him.
can declare any as scheduled
area and has
powerswith to the administration
of scheduled areas and tribal areas.
powers
Isislativc
Followingare few important legislative powers
of the President:-
He can summon or prorogue the
Parliament and dissolve the
Lok Sabha. [Article
He can summon a oint sittin of both
the Houses of Parliament [Article1081
@ He can appoint any member of the Lok
Sabha to preside over its proceedingswhen the
offices of both the Speaker and the Deputy
Speaker fall vacant. Similarly, he can also
appornt any member of the Rajya Sabha to preside over
its proceedings when the offices
of both the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman fall vacant.
He nominates 12 members of the Rajya Sabha from amongst persons having special
knowledge or practical experience in literature, science, art and social service. [Article
He can nominate two members to the Lok Sabha from the Anglo-Indian community.
[Article 33 Il
a law can bc
se«on. is in session
only both the
An made when are
An parallel power of .11
and not ordinance is not a
to by
Thus of the
only when he is satisfied that the
ordinance
can make an
Grounds of promulgation: He action. In R.C. cooper v. Union
him to take immediate
that rendct it necessa ' fot in the name of the
ordinance is promulgated
that the
AIR SC the supreme court held promulgated on the advice of the council
but in truth it is
in constitutional senseon his satisfaction, the ground ofmalafide. In
questioned in a court on
be
and on their The satisfactioncan ordinance would be subject
710,Supreme court held that
A.K. Roy v. Union oflndia, AIR1982 SC
Court in T. Venkata Reddy
reasonableness and ublicinterest.Supreme
the test arbitrariness make ordinance is
since the power to legislative
1985 SC 724 held that
v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR
such as improper motives
exercisecannot be questioned on grounds or
power and not executive power, its
non-application of mind.
If the Houses of Parliament are summonedto reassembleon different dates, the period of six weeks
is calculated from the later of thosedates.This meansthat the maximum life of an ordinance can be six
months and six weeks, in case of non-approvalby the Parliament (six months being the maximum gap
between the two sessions of Parliament).
Othcr important a«pccts: If' an is Allowedto Inpqewithout being placed before Parlia-
then the act« done and cotnplctcd under it, before it ccaqcsto operate, rcrn;un fully valid and effective.
prcsidcnt•s power of ordinanceMnaking is not a disc rctionary power, and he ( an promulgate or with-
an ordinance only on thc adN«c of the Council of Miniqtcrs hcadcd by thc J'rjrnc Ministcr, Ordinance
bc Bsucd to arncnd thc Con«itution.
In p.c. W'adhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) I SCC 378,SuprcmcCourt ruled that successwere-
promulgation of-ordinances without any attcmpt to gct thc Bills passcd by the Assembly would amount to
on Constitution and the ordinance so re-promulgatcd is liable to bc struck down. It held that the
ccpaonal power Of law making through ordinancc cannot bc used as a substitute for the legislative
cx
-,wcrof the State Legislature.
(i) Money bills can be introduced in the Parliament only with his prior recommendation.
[Article 109 and 110]
He causes to be laid before the Parliament the annual financial statement (i.e., the Union
Budget). [Article 112]
(IV)He can make advancesout of the contingencyfund of India to meet any unforeseen
expenditure.
(i) He can seek advice from the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact. However, the
advice tendered by the Supreme Court is not binding on the President, [Article 1431
(ii) He can grant pardon. reprieve. respite and remission of punishment, or suspend, remit or
commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence:
In all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court martial;
(b) In all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against a Union law;
and
,q
Pardoning of the l'rcsidcnt rc res ite
to grant pardon
convicted of any
; of any person
thc
suspend,
Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1 held that the there is
presumption that the constitutional authority acts with due application of mind. Clemency power has to
exercisedin aid of justice and not in defiance of it. The court held that inordinate delay in deciding mer.
petitionsof death row convicts amounts to torture and is a sufficient basis to commute sentence of death
to lifeimprisonment. Court overruledits earlierjudgmentin Devander Singh Bhullar v. State of NCT
of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC 1975 in which the Supreme Court had held that delay in disposing mercy petition
cannotbe a ground for commuting death sentence.In Mohd. Arif v. The Registrar, Supreme Court,
(2014)9 SCC 737 Supreme Court held that judicial review of death penalty cases must mandatorily be
heard in an open court by a bench of at least three judges.
Pardoning power of Governor: Article 161 provides that the Governor of a State also possessesthe
pardoning power. The Governor can also grant pardons, reprieves. respites and remissions of punishment
or suspend, remit and commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against a State law.
Difference between pardoning power of President and Governor: The pardoning power of the
governor differs from that of the President in following two respects:
I. The President can pardon sentences inflicted by coun martial (military courts) while the Governor
cannot.
SC 1002 Supreme Court held that there is an overarching condition that executive power is to
accordance with this Constitution' IreferArticle This phrase opens the way to judicial
of executive action. Therefore, any exercrseof the executivepower not In accordance with the
(Constitution is liable to bc set aside.
Position of President vis-å-vis Council of Ministers: Article 74 deals with the Council of Minis-
leys to Lid and advise the President. According to it there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime
its head to aid and advise the President. The President shall in exerciseof his function act in
accordance such advise. When the President acts directly, he acts on the advice of the Council Of
Mxnxsteys.
In Ram Ja waya v. Stare of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549 Supreme Court held that our Constitution has
adopted tile British system of a parliamentary executive and the President is only a '€ormal or constitutional
power vests in the Ministers or the Cabinet. Further in RC
head of tioe executive'. "l*he'real executive'
Supreme Court observed that the President
Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564 acts in all
of Ministers. in Sham.sher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974SC
rnatters on the advice of tile Council
requires the 'satisfaction of the President' it
held that whenever the Constitution is not
2192 Suprerne Court 'satisfaction of the Council
constitutional sense the
but in
his personal
Samanh Agrawal Fkx»ks
132
o/ India
Counیl
I that the 1976
to the
ornorl(hrjent the Article
the I
is quitc clmr
It the
to
that the he
shall in 10 given
with
The Vicc
President
63 provides that there shall
be a
Vice-President of
in the country. India. The office
Article 64 of Viccorcsident is the
provides that the
council of the States (Rajya sabha). Vice-Presidentshall bc ex Chairman
He shall not
hold any other
any period when the office of profit.
Vice-President acts
as President or
Article 65, he shall not perform dischargesthe functions of the Presi-
the duties of the
not be entitled to any salary or office of Chairman of the Council
ofStates
allowance payable to
the Chairman of the Council
ofStates.
of the Vice-President
Election
66 provides that the Vice-President
shall be elected by the
members ofelectoral college consist-
ofboth Houses of Parliament.
The election shall be held
in accordance with the system of
nooruonal re resentation b means of the sin le
transferable vote and by secret ballot.
It isto be noted that the electoral college for
the election of Vice-President shall
consist of both elected
zd nominatedmembers of the Parliament. It does not
include the members of the State Lecislative
assemblies.
Qualifications
for the election as Vice-President
Article66(3) provides the following qualifications for the election as Vice-President—
4' He should not hold any office of profit under the Union government or any State government
or any local authority or any other public authority.
: Volume//
toJudioal Scrvmcs
A
Parliamentary Privilcgcs
a vicw to cnablc thc Parliamcnt to cfficicntly
arc gvantcd to thc Parliamcnt with
Ccrtmn and
the House without fcar or favour. The privilcgcs arc special right;
of
cft-ceuvclydischargc thc functions thcir committccs and thClrrncrn_
exemptions cnioycd by the two Houses of Parliament,
immunitics and
to maintain the authority, dignity and honour of thc 105
bcrs. %csc privilcgcsarc essential
194 deals with thc privilcgc; of the
privileges of the two Houses of Parliament while Article
deals Ishth the
the State Legislature as well. Article 105
105 applies mutatis mutandis to
State Legislative Assemblies. Article
provides following privileges:
Parliamentary Privileges
Article 194
Article 105
Supreme Court in PV Narsimha Rao v. State, AIR 1998SC 2120was confronted with following
two important questions with respectto parliamentaryprivileges:-
1. Whether by virtue of Articles 105(1)and 105(2),a member of Parliament can claim immunity
from prosecution before a criminal court on the charge of bribery in relation to the proceedings
of the Parliament?
Constitutionof India
factsof the casc which gavc risc to thc above mcntioncd qucstions wcrc that in 1993govcrnmcnt
bysarsimha Rao lost majority in the House and a no-confidcncc motion was moved, To avoid dcfcat
no-
in thcHouse some Mcmbcr of Parliament were bribed to vote against thc motion. Conscqucntly
was dcfcatcd.
confidcnccmotion
Asregardsthe first question the Supreme Court held that ordinary law does not apply to acceptance
Court held that by virtue of Article 105(2)members of the House who gave bribe did not enjoy
immunity,but those members who accepted the bribe and voted in accordance with it enjoy the immunity
underArticle105(2)and no criminal prosecution can be launched.Court further held that member who
hadacceptedthe bribe but had not casted the vote also did not enjoy the immunity. Therefore, what the
courtheld in a nut shell was that if a member has accepted the bribe and has casted vote in the Parliament
inaccordancewith such gratification, a criminal prosecution cannot be launched against him.
As regardsthe second question the court held that a Member of Parliament or Member of State
Assemblyis a 'public servant' under Prevention of Corruption Act.
Lecislative
publication under Parliamentary authority: Article 105(2)further provides that and no person
of
shallbe so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament
anyreport,paper, votes or proceedings.Therefore, all persons connected with the publication of proceed-
ingsof the House are protected if the same is made under the authority of the House.
, in
Article361-Afurther provides that no person shall be liable to any proceedings, civil or criminal
proceedings of
anycourtin respect of the publication in a newspaperof substantially true report of any
to have been made
eitherHouse of Parliament or LegislativeAssembly,unless the publication is proved
v3ithmalice.
the
Internal autonomy: It is important to confer such privilegesto the Parliament which facilitates
the validity of any
workingof it without outside interference. In this regard Article 122(1)provides that
Proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any allegedirregularity of
Procedure.Article 1221(2)further provides that no office or member of Parliament in whom the powers
arevestedby or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business,or for main-
tainingorder, in the Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of
powerby him.