India Intelligence Report
 

SC Stays EC Hand

 

The Supreme Court restrained the Election Commission to hold elections for the 10 Lok Sabha seats held by the disgraced Parliamentarians who took money on camera to ask questions in the Parliament

When these Parliamentarians were refused permission to sign the roster and asked to vacate their houses, they sued the Parliament and sought court protection to enforce a fair hearing. While the all party decision and vote clearly suspended these disgraced politicians and barred their participation in official proceedings till investigation was complete, it did not grant the Speaker Somnath Chatterjee the power to ban their signing in or evict them. Chatterjee went further and asked the EC to conduct new elections for these posts. When the SC asked the Parliament for an explanation, Chatterjee refused to even respond to the query claiming that the Parliament’s decision is "non-justiciable (sic)."

The dispute is whether the Parliament proceedings are beyond purview of the court, Parliament has the right to interpret law, and Parliament is beyond judicial review. Furthermore, while the Parliament’s decision and its “justiciable” nature are being argued, the question is whether Chatterjee has the power to take the decisions he has. It looks like that since he is the Speaker, his decisions and actions are above the law and “non-justiciable.” 

While the Indian Constitution allows the Parliament to make the laws, it defines the judiciary as the mechanism to interpret it. While the Constitution allows for creating policy through the interpretation of loopholes in law in a process called "judicial activism," there is no scope for the Parliament to interpret law.