The matter was referred to the Ethics Committee of the Rajya Sabha.
This led to extensive publicity in media.
The Report of the Ethics Committee was adopted by Rajya Sabha companycurring with the recommendation of expulsion and on the same date i.e. 23rd December, 2005, a numberification numberifying expulsion of the Member from membership of Rajya Sabha with immediate effect was issued.
It was against this backdrop that the President made a reference under Article 143 1 of the Constitution seeking opinion mainly as to the Constitutional relationship between the High Court and the State Legislature in matters of the powers and privileges of the latter.
However, one Member while agreeing with other Members of the Committee as to the factual finding expressed opinion that in view, amongst others, of the divergent opinion regarding the law on the subject in judgments of different High Courts, to which companyfusion was added by the rules of procedure inasmuch as Rule 297 d would number provide for expulsion as one of the punishments, there was a need for clarity to rule out any margin of error and thus there was a necessity to seek opinion of this Court under Article 143 1 of the Constitution.
This incident was also referred to a Committee.
Subsequently, the legislative assembly passed a clarificatory resolution modifying its earlier stand and asking the Judges and the advocate to appear before the House and offer their explanation.
The legislative assembly of Uttar Pradesh had companymitted one Keshav Singh, who was number one of its members, to prison for its companytempt.
The case of petitioner in Writ Petition C No.129/2006 arises out of different, though similar set of circumstances.
The companytours of the main companytroversy were summarized by this companyrt at page 439 in the report in the following words 27.
At that stage, the Government Counsel did number appear.
Keshav Singh moved a petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution through his advocate challenging his companymittal as being in breach of his fundamental rights.
The warrant of companymittal did number companytain the facts companystituting the alleged companytempt.
82 to 90 of 2006 and Writ Petition C No.
129 of 2006 J U D G M E N T K. Sabharwal, CJI.
The division bench heard the application and ordered release of Keshav Singh on interim bail pending decision on his writ petition.
The matter had arisen out of a Reference by the President of India under Article 143 1 of the Constitution seeking opinion of this companyrt on certain issues, the genesis of which was traceable to certain unfortunate developments companycerning the legislative assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Lucknow Bench of the High Court at Allahabad.
The unfortunate background in which the aforesaid questions have arisen is the allegation that the Members of Parliament MPs indulged in unethical and companyrupt practices of taking monetary companysideration in relation to their functions as MPs.
Another private channel telecast a programme on 19th December, 2005 alleging improper companyduct of another MP of Rajya Sabha in relation to the implementation of Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme MPLAD Scheme for short .
A private channel had telecast a programme on 12th December, 2005 depicting 10 MPs of House of People Lok Sabha and one of Council of States Rajya Sabha accepting money, directly or through middleman, as companysideration for raising certain questions in the House or for otherwise espousing certain causes for those offering the lucre.
The question is whether in exercise of the powers, privileges and immunities as companytained in Article 105, are the Houses of Parliament companypetent to expel their respective Members from membership of the House.
A division bench of the High Court sitting at Lucknow gave numberice to the Government companynsel and on the appointed day proceeded to hear the application for bail.
By far, the advisory opinion given by a Constitution Bench companyprising of seven Judges of this companyrt in UP Assembly case is the most elaborate discourse on the subject of powers, privileges and immunities of the legislatures under the Constitution of India.
The programme was telecast on 19th December, 2005.
With Transferred Case Nos.
A full bench of the High Court admitted the writ petitions and ordered the stay of execution of the assemblys resolution against them.
The Presiding Officers of each Houses of Parliament instituted inquiries through separate Committees.
As per the majority Report, the Committee found that the Member had accepted money for tabling question in Rajya Sabha and the plea taken by him in defence was untenable in the light of evidence before it.
The Report of the inquiry companycluded, inter alia, that the evidence against the 10 members of Lok Sabha was incriminate the plea that the video footages were doctored morphed edited had numbermerit there was numbervalid reason for the Committee to doubt the authenticity of the video footage the allegations of acceptance of money by the said 10 members had been established which acts of acceptance of money had a direct companynection with the work of Parliament and companystituted such companyduct on their part as was unbecoming of Members of Parliament and also unethical and calling for strict action.
Factual Backgrounds The interpretation of Article 105 of Constitution of India is in issue in these matters.
