Sec 6A Of The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively: Supreme Court

Case title: CBI Vs R.R Kishore

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No.377 Of 2007

Decided on: 11.09.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Koul, Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Justice J.K Maheshwari.


Hon’ble Justices stated that “once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part-III of the Constitution, then it would be held to be void ab initio, still born, unenforceable and non est in view of Article 13(2) of the Constitution and its interpretation by authoritative pronouncements. Thus, the declaration made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Subramanian Swamy will have retrospective operation. Section 6A of the DSPE Act is held to be not in force from the date of its insertion i.e. 11.09.2003.”


The story begins with the CBI registering an FIR against a Radiologist for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Later they laid a trap and the radiologist is said to have accepted a bribe. A charge sheet was filed and before the Special Judge and the Radiologist filed a discharge petition. The main contention in that petition was that the trap which was a part of the enquiry/investigation had been laid without the previous approval of the Central Government as provided under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Though the Special Judge rejected this discharge plea, the High Court of Delhi allowed his revision petition and held that the CBI acted in contravention of Section 6A DSPE Act. Against this judgment, the CBI approached the Apex Court.

During the pendency of this appeal, the constitution bench judgment Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation was delivered, which held that  Section 6A(1) of the DSPE Act was held to be invalid.

So when the appeal came up before the bench again, the CBI contended that Section 6A(1) has been declared to be unconstitutional,  the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the prosecution should be allowed to continue with the proceedings from the stage of rejection of discharge application. In other words, the CBI contended that the Constitution bench judgment striking down Section 6A would have retrospective effect. On the other hand, the accused contended that this judgment could not have any retrospective operation. The court has placed this case before the constitutional bench to decide the matter at hand.


Taking into account the nuance of Article 13(2), the court ruled that the State is prohibited from making any law that takes away or limits the rights conferred by Part-III, and that any law made in violation of this clause is void to the extent of the violation. Article 13(2) prohibits the making of any law, so it would apply to laws enacted after the Constitution’s inception, such as the case at hand. In this case, it has been determined that Section 6A of the DSPE Act violates Article 14 of Part III of the Constitution, rendering it void.

The court additionally clarified how the word “void” must be construed. It noted that “void” has been interpreted in a number of judgements of this Court from 1951 to the present, and has been given various names such as ‘non est’, ‘void ab initio’, ‘still born’, and ‘unenforceable’.

The court stated that once a statute is deemed unconstitutional for violating Part III of the Constitution, it is void ab initio, still born, unenforceable, and non-existent under Article 13(2) of the Constitution.

Hence, the appeal of CBI is allowed and set aside the order of high court.


“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement


Uttarakhand’s UCC Bill: Unravelling the Impact and Implications for Uttarakhand.


Uniform Civil Code (UCC) seeks to establish a uniform body of laws that regulates personal affairs, including inheritance, property rights, marriage, and divorce, regardless of a person’s religious beliefs. The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are policies that the Indian Constitution seeks to implement for the benefit of society. The DPSP is defined in Chapter IV of the Indian Constitution, which states that the state shall strive to establish a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) throughout India’s territory. Personal laws in India are currently governed by scriptures, which can be confusing and discriminatory towards women’s rights. The DPSP, which was enacted to ensure civil law uniformity, has yet to be enforced.

The fundamental goal of the UCC is to treat every citizen equally under the same set of civil laws, irrespective of their race, religion, caste, or section. According to Article 44 of Chapter IV of Indian constitution, “The State shall endeavour to secure for its citizens a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) throughout the territory of India.”


The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) first appeared in the British government’s 1835 report on colonial India, which emphasised the need for uniformity in the codification of Indian law in terms of crimes, evidence, and contracts, and specifically suggested that personal laws of Hindus and Muslims be kept out of such codification.

Increased legislation dealing with personal issues in the far reaches of British rule compelled the government to establish the B N Rau Committee to codify Hindu law in 1941. The Hindu Law Committee’s task was to investigate the necessity of common Hindu laws. The committee, following scripture, recommended a codified Hindu law that would grant women equal rights.

The Rau Committee report was submitted to a select committee chaired by B R Ambedkar, which met in 1951 following the adoption of the Constitution. While discussions were ongoing, the Hindu Code Bill lapsed and was resubmitted in 1952. The bill was then passed as the Hindu Succession Act in 1956, which amended and codified the law governing intestate or unwilled succession among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs.


The Uniform Civil Code has been a source of contention and discussion in India for decades. Recently, the state of Uttarakhand took a significant step towards implementing a UCC.
Previously, the State government formed a five-member committee led by Desai to develop a draft proposal for implementing the UCC. The committee prepared a draft bill, which the chief minister introduced in the assembly. Following deliberations, the Uttarakhand assembly passed the Uniform Civil Code Uttarakhand 2024 Bill, making it the first state in India to implement a Uniform Civil Code.  

The Bill establishes common law for matters such as marriage, divorce, property inheritance, and so on, and it applies to all Uttarakhand residents with the exception of scheduled tribes.


  • The Uniform Civil Code establishes a common law for marriage, divorce, and property inheritance, replacing personal laws from various religions. The common code prohibits bigamy and polygamy, and provides equal property rights to both sons and daughters.
  • It eliminates the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate offspring, ensures equal property rights after death, and applies to both adoptive and biological children.
  • The law requires live-in couples to be legally registered. According to the proposed legislation, people who are in a live-in relationship must officially register their relationship within a month of starting it and obtain parental consent. Registration of such partnerships is required for “any individual residing in Uttarakhand or in a live-in relationship outside of the state.” Registration, however, may be denied if one partner is married, a minor, or if consent to the relationship was obtained through coercion or fraudulent means. Partners can also end their relationship by submitting a statement to the registrar.
  • The UCC Bill sets the marriage age at 18 for women and 21 for men across all communities. Furthermore, it is not permissible to file a divorce petition until at least one year after marriage.
  • The Uniform Civil Code will not apply to Scheduled Tribes (ST) community members.


  • The opposing views on the current bill stem from a variety of reasons. The passage of this legislation would potentially violate various communities’ religious autonomy by interfering with religious customs and traditions without their consent.
  • Some argue that a single code may not adequately accommodate the diverse customs and sensitivities of various communities. This, in turn, may limit the diversity of religious and cultural practices in India.
  • On the issue of live-in relationships, critics claim that the bill allows the government to intrude into citizens’ personal lives. They believe that the rules governing live-in relationships are an invasion of privacy.
  • The state’s opposition parties oppose passing the bill because they believe there was insufficient debate on it, and they have proposed that the bill be referred to a select committee of the House to examine its provisions.
  • Some religious leaders have questioned the government, asking why Scheduled Tribes are excluded but cannot be Muslims.
  • People also felt that personal-related practices are deeply ingrained in the religious and cultural identities of various Indian communities. Implementing a uniform civil code may require them to give up their identities, which could lead to turmoil in society and communal tension.


For decades, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has sparked debate and discussion in India. It seeks to establish a uniform set of laws governing personal matters such as marriage, divorce, property rights, inheritance, and others, regardless of an individual’s religion. The implementation of the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code is a significant step towards equality and social justice. It reflects the state’s commitment to ensuring that personal laws are uniform regardless of religious affiliation. Though the bill has both supporting and opposing views, it will be interesting to see how the bill affects the lives of Uttarakhand residents as it works its way through the legislative process.


“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith


Aligarh Muslim University’s Minority Status: A Legal and Historical Examination.


One of the oldest and most prominent universities in India, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), has been involved in a legal dispute concerning its minority status for many years. Muslim reformer Sir Syed Ahmed Khan established AMU as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in 1877 with the intention of preserving Islamic values while addressing Muslim educational lag. The Muslim University Association and MAO College became a part of AMU when the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920 took effect. Whether AMU qualifies for minority status under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution in the present circumstances is the question.


Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, also known as Aligarh Muslim University, was founded in 1877 by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. It was later incorporated by the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920.

In 1965, the Act underwent additional amendments, redistributing the Court’s powers among various bodies, including the executive, with the President of India nominating the governing body.

In S. Azeez Basha & Anr. v. Union of India, the dispute started in 1967. The petitioners contested AMU Act amendments, claiming that their rights under Article 30(1) namely, the right to establish and administer educational institutions had been violated. According to the Supreme Court, the efforts of the Muslim minority may have led to the 1920 Act’s passage. That being said, this does not mean that Aligarh University was founded by the Muslim minority in accordance with the 1920 Act.

In 1981, the Act underwent yet another amendment that defined ‘university’ as an establishment “established by the Muslims of India.” AMU instituted reservation policies in 2005, designating Muslim candidates for half of the postgraduate medical seats. Using the Supreme Court’s ruling in Azeez Basha as guide, the Allahabad High Court heard a challenge to this policy that same year. The argument was that since AMU is not a minority institution, the reservation is void.

The Allahabad High Court struck down the reservation policy, ignoring the 1981 amendment and ruling that AMU was not a minority institution based on Azeez Basha, rejecting the Union government’s and the university’s argument that the 1981 amendment rendered the Azeez Basha precedent invalid.

The reservation policy was put on hold in 2006 after an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court. The National Democratic Alliance government denied AMU’s minority status in 2016 by withdrawing from the appeal.

A three-judge bench referred the Azeez Basha ruling to a seven-judge bench on February 12, 2019, for review. The case was finally taken up by a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on October 12, 2023.


All linguistic and religious minorities have the fundamental right to establish and administer any kind of educational institution they choose, according to Article 30(1) of Part III of the Constitution. Article 30(2) mandates that the State provide ‘equality of treatment’ to all educational institutions receiving aid, irrespective of whether they belong to minority or not.


In this case, the Supreme Court addresses two issues concerning the AMU’s minority status.

  1. What are the criteria for granting minority status to educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution?
  2. Can educational institutions established by parliamentary statute qualify for minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution?

Dr. Dhavan, the petitioners’ counsel, argued that a minority educational institution should not lose its minority status just because it is subject to statutory regulation and that the constitutional viewpoint, which supports the integration of liberal and religious education, should be taken into account.

He contended that the Azeez Basha ruling was in conflict with itself since the top court determined that a university had to be recognised by law for its degrees to be recognised. Nonetheless, the court found that AMU would lose its minority status if the statute were to recognise it.

Dr. Dhavan contended that this would nullify Article 30 and subordinate a fundamental right to a statute by requiring all minority institutions to apply for recognition under a statute and give up their minority status.

Dr. Dhavan emphasized that, for the purposes of Article 30, “established” includes terms like “found,” “recognise,” “confirm,” and “admit.” In response to a question concerning the distinction between “found” and “bring into existence,” he explained that the former refers to incorporation while the latter takes into account prior circumstances.

The respondent’s attorney is Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India. He contended that unlike “nationalist” institutions that opposed and denounced the British government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asserted that AMU chose to be a “loyalist” institution and ceded its minority status to the government. Azeez Basha, he said, accepted this ceding of rights.

The SG contended in the Azeez Basha case that the ruling only applied to the 1920 Act and did not create a law that was generally applicable, implying that a university loses its minority status upon incorporation. He made it clear that the 1920 Act was the main focus of the Azeez Basha case, and that AMU is not a minority university under that Act.

Underlining the significance of AMU as a national university, Tushar Mehta asked the Court to consider the matter from a social justice standpoint in order to ensure that students from the SC/ST/SEBC sections have equal access to it. Currently, between 70 to 80 percent of AMU students identify as Muslims.


From January 10 to February 1, 2024, the seven-judge bench, presided over by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, heard arguments for eight full days.

The Chief Justice of India has reserved the matter to make a decision at a later time after considering all of the arguments.

The question of whether AMU can assert its minority status and whether the Azeez Basha ruling ought to be reversed will be decided by the court. In addition to AMU, this decision has significant ramifications for minority universities throughout India.

To sum up, the AMU minority status case emphasizes how important it is to strike a careful balance between historical context, legal interpretations, and constitutional rights. AMU’s minority status is in jeopardy while we wait for the Supreme Court’s ruling.


“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith


Eknath Shinde Faction is the original Shiv Sena : Maharashtra Speaker in the crisis of split of shiv sena party


The Maharashtra political crisis revolves around the disqualification of Eknath Shinde Faction of the Shiv Sena party after the Maharashtra election in 2022. The same was challenged by Shinde in the SC. Thackeray contended to the SC that the MLA’s of the Shinde-led Shiv Sena party can only save themselves through merger to another party. The dispute arises on which association is the real or original “shiv sena”. Subsequently, the Thackeray Faction plea was rejected by the SC and the same was transferred to a 7-bench court. Thackeray faction pleaded that the election commission should be challenged on recognizing Eknath Shinde led shiv sena to be original shiv Sena. On May 2023, the SC held the verdict that Eknath Shinde will continue as the CM of Maharashtra. The election commission gave the Shinde led party the original shiv sena sign of bow and arrow and the official name of shiv sena.

Current Scenario:

The SC gave appropriate notice to the Speaker, Rahul Narwekar to adjudicate on the matter relating to disqualification by January 10th 2024 and criticized the delay in adjudication process.

The Maharashtra Legislative assembly speaker, Rahul Narwekar gave a final verdict that the Eknath-Shinde led party as the original Shiv Sena party. He also rejected the disqualification notice produced by Thackeray to disqualify 16 MLA’s of the ruling party, including the chief minister, Eknath Shinde.

The challenge of Eknath Shinde against Thackeray is that he is the paksh pramukh which means he is the party head of the shiv sena party on the basis of legislative majority and Thackeray did not have the power to remove him. However, as per the 1999 party’s constitution amendment, the national executive as the highest party body.

References were taken to the 10th Schedule of the Constitution which mentions about Anti-defection laws. It states that a member shall be disqualified if he joins another political party after election takes place. It also mentions that a disqualification on the name of defection cannot be applied in the cases of merger. Under the 10th Schedule, the speaker acts in the power of a judge and decides whether the grounds of disqualification justified.

The speaker also stated that in the name of 10th Schedule, a dissent or disqualification cannot be enforced within a party over disciplinary issues. The main reason for upholding Shinde faction to be the original shiv sena was because Thackeray faction failed the test of legislative majority. The Shinde faction had the majority of the MLA’s present in the shiv sena members with 37MLA as opposed to 18MLAs in the Thackeray faction.

Interpretation of Schedule 10 of the Constitution:

The genesis of Schedule 10 of the constitution states that a defense for anti-defection is based on the merger of parties and not the split of parties. In the current matter, the factual basis of Shinde let party is that it did not merge to another party but rather split from shiv sena. This is not permitted under the Schedule 10 of the constitution.

The speaker contended that whoever the majority MLA lies with is the original party. It is argued that the test of “legislative majority” is not recognized under the 10th Schedule as the only recourse available for anti defection is merger. It should be noted that from the 2019 elections, the Shiv Sena party was fundamentally led by the Thackeray faction and not by the Shinde faction. The supreme court on its verdict regarding the matter held that a legislative party should be distinguished from a political party. It also held that the power to appoint a government whip lies within the political party which was Thackeray led government at that time.

The Thackeray led faction has planned to challenge the verdict in the SC on the principal contention of challenging the rule of ‘majority legislators’ not being the core principle of Schedule 10.

Conclusion :

The political dynamic of Maharashtra’s shiv sena party is that of game of cat and mouse. Despite the CM being won on majority supporting him, the challenge to the verdict shows a long lasting battle between Shinde and Thackeray in the upcoming years.

The court is also to fact the question whether the parliament or the speaker should have the power of adjudication without having bias over the parties involved.


Analysis of the constitutional provision of Article 122 with regards to suspension of members of parliament

Introduction :

During the winter session of the parliament, more than 145 members of the parliament were suspended on account of opposition to the central government between December 14 and December 21, 2023.  This firstly causes a functional calamity in the parliament and also affects the roles and responsibilities of the MPs. The suspended members are barred from entering the chambers of parliament, including the lobby and gallery. They are also restricted from participating in sittings of Parliamentary Committees. Any notice or business listed under their name will not be under operational conditions during the suspension[1]. Some claim the suspension is a consequence of the Opposition’s demand for a statement in parliament by the government over the security breach[2].

In total, over 100 MPs from the Lok Sabha were suspended and over 46 from the Rajya Sabha. This marks as the highest number of suspensions in the parliament. Crucial bills have been passed at this time of suspension including the telecommunications bill and the criminal law reform bills[3].

The power to suspend :

It is within the authority of both Houses of Parliament to punish disobedient members in order to maintain their uninterrupted operations. This authority is granted in order to make sure the Houses run well and to punish those who cause chaos.

As a general rule, the Presiding officer, i.e the Speaker of both the houses should maintain peace and order so that the House can function smoothly. To ensure that, he/she has the right to withdraw a member from the house.

In the Lok Sabha, The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha provides for the provisions relating to suspension, withdrawal and reprimand from lok sabha due to unruly behaviour[4].

  • Rule 373, the speaker can direct a member to withdraw immediately from the house in case of any misconduct. The members who are ordered to withdraw remain absent for a day’s sitting.
  • Rule 374 provides for the speaker to call out the members who disregard the authority of the chair or abuses the rules. Such members will be suspended for a period not exceeding the session.
  • Rule 374A was added in 2001 which states that if any member through their actions or causes any gross violation will be automatically suspended by the speaker for a period of either 5 consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less.

According to the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha)[5], the members of the Rajya Sabha will be suspended through the procedure mentioned in the following procedure :

  • Rule 255 states that the presiding officer can invoke the suspension of the MP. The chairman can suspend if in his opinion is behaving through misconduct or is causing disorder.
  • Rule 256 provides that the chairman can suspend a member from the service of the Council for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session.

Constitutional validity of suspension of MPs :

The true essence of Indian Democracy is the feature of separation of powers. This means, the executive, legislature and judiciary are its own bodies and either of them can interfere. The roles of these bodies cannot be interchanged or taken upon.

However, the constitution of India provides for the Judicial Review, which allows the judiciary to look into any reform and suggest the government. Similarly, the constitution also ensures that the powers of the bodies are not overlapped under Article 122.

It states that:

  1. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament

(1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure

(2) No officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in Parliament shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers  

The Supreme Court in various instances have upheld the validity of the proceedings of the parliament on the ground that it is permissible under Article 122. Article 122 set the foundation principle to not overlap the functions of the judiciary and the legislature.

Article 122 acts as an immunity to the Parliament and a restriction on the judiciary.

Judicial Pronouncements

In the case of Ramdas Athawale v Union of India[6], the hon’ble Supreme Court held that Under Article 122(2),  the decision of the Speaker in whom powers are vested to regulate the procedure and the conduct of business is final and binding on every Member of the House. The facts of the case was that the speaker adjourned the house and resumed the meeting after a while. The court found that the irregularity of proceedings was not established.

The court also found that, “The courts cannot go into the lawfulness of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament. The Constitution aims at maintaining a fine balance between the legislature, executive and judiciary. The object of the constitutional scheme is to ensure that each of the constitutional organs function within their respective assigned sphere”. The same principle was followed in the case of Satish Chandra v Speaker, Lok Sabha[7] where the court held that it is well used in the language of Article 122 that the courts cannot interfere with the proceedings of the parliament.

In the Allahabad High Court, the question arose in the case of Naveen Gupta V Union of India[8] was whether the votes given by lok sabha members were valid or not. The court stated that, the ability to answer such question is beyond the scope and control of the judiciary and judicial review presented by the constitution.

The court opined that:

“ In our opinion, these are not matters for judicial review in view of the specific provision in Article 122(1) of the Constitution”

Article 212 of the Constitution provides for the same rules of court interference in the matters of state legislature. The Hon’ble supreme court in M. S. M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha[9] held that the validity of proceedings inside the state legislature on the grounds of not following proper procedure cannot be challenged in court. The court stated that, the state legislature has its special jurisdiction, and no court can interfere into that. Furthermore, in the case of Kihoto Holloahan, stated that the state legislature has the same immunity from mere irregularities of procedure.

 The Supreme Court in the landmark case of Raja Ram Pal V Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha and Ors[10] laid down the twin test to contemplate Article 122 of the Constitution. The test was that unless there is illegality in the proceedings, the court would not interfere. The court stated that irregularities in procedure and unconstitutionality of the proceedings would be accepted as the text only mention the illegality of the proceeding to be barred.

It stated that “ Any attempt to read a limitation into Article 122 so as to restrict the court’s jurisdiction to examination of the Parliament’s procedure in case of unconstitutionality, as opposed to illegality would amount to doing violence to the constitutional text. Applying the principle of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (whatever has not been included has by implication been excluded), it is plain and clear that prohibition against examination on the touchstone of “irregularity of procedure” does not make taboo judicial review on findings of illegality or unconstitutionality”

In another landmark case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain, it was held that the constitution ensures that there is adequate separation of powers as it is upto the legislature’s hand to decide their own proceedings. The ambit of the court would go to the extent of ensuring proper procedure has been established and if there are irregularities, such shouldn’t be illegal in nature.

In the recent case of Rojer Mathew (S) v. South Indian Bank Ltd[11], the court agreed with the previous interpretation of Article 122 as providing immunity to the legislature. It stated that India is governed by constitutional supremacy and judicial review is part of the basic structure of the constitution. It quoted :

“Any exclusion of judicial review has to be understood in the context in which it has been mandated under a specific provision of the constitution. Hence the provisions contained in article 122 which protect an alleged irregularity of procedure in the proceedings in Parliament being questioned cannot extend to a substantive illegality or a violation of a constitutional mandate.”

Conclusion :

In a country like India where democracy prevails from time to time, it is challenging to shun down the voices of MPs. However, the arbitrariness and the power vested upon the speaker of the houses creates a dynamic view for the definition of democracy. Although the aspect of suspension cannot be questioned by the judiciary, it is yet to be clarified whether the same is legal or not. As per the rules of the houses, the speaker has unprecedented power to suspend or withdraw any member he wishes to. The main conflict of interest among such thought is that the suspension can be purely based on the speaker’s opinion and thoughts. This on the outlook seems arbitrary and unreasonable. However, it is clear that the Court’s scope on challenging such is beyond the powers mentioned in the Constitution.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

[1] Sounak Mukhopadhyay, 141 Opposition Mps Suspended So Far : Are They Allowed To Enter Parliament? Check List Of Restriction, LIVEMINT (Dec 20, 2023) https://www.livemint.com/news/india/141-opposition-mps-suspended-so-far-are-they-allowed-to-enter-parliament-check-list-of-restrictions-11703057026922.html

[2] DHNS, Parliament, Democracy in suspension, DECCANHERALD (Dec 20,2023) https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/editorial/parliament-democracy-in-suspension-2818157

[3] PRS Legislative Research, Winter Session Snapshot: Record Number of Lok Sabha MPs Suspended; No Bills Sent to Committees, THEWIRE (Dec 23, 2023) https://thewire.in/government/winter-session-snapshot-record-number-of-lok-sabha-mps-suspended-no-bills-sent-to-committees

[4] Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, 15th edition, https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/66/1/Rules_Procedure_LokSabha.pdf

[5] Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), 9th edition https://cms.rajyasabha.nic.in/UploadedFiles/LegislativeSection/LegislativeRules/English_2052022english_3092021rules_pro.pdf

[6] (2010) 4 SCC 1

[7] (2014) SCC 2 178

[8] (1999) ALR 36 328

[9] AIR 1960 SC 1186

[10] (2007) SCC 3 184

[11] 2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1456

1 2 3 4