JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Central Government.
2. This writ petition relates to the recent voting in the Lok Sabha on the confidence motion, which was rejected on 17.4.1999 by the Lok Sabha by a margin of only one vote.
3. Several prayers have been made in this writ petition. A mandamus has been prayed for directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to count the votes cast by five B.S.P. Members or the vote of respondent No. 4. Sri Girdhar Gomango and a further prayer is that these votes be declared illegal. It has further been prayed that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be directed to reconvene the meeting of the Lok Sabha and get the voting done afresh. A further prayer is for a mandamus to continue the B.J.P. and coalition Government headed by Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee as Prime Minister.
4. In our opinion, these are not matters for judicial review in view of the specific provision in Article 122(1) of the Constitution. The said Article 122(1) states :
"The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure."
5. In our opinion, in view of this specific provision in the Constitution, the question whether any vote in the Lok Sabha was invalid or not is beyond the scope of judicial review.
6. In this connection, reference may be made to the book 'Constitutional and Administrative Law' by Hood Phillips in which it is stated :
"The Courts must presume that so august an Assembly as the House of Commons discharges its function lawfully and properly. They will, therefore, not take cognizance of matters arising within the walls of the Mouse, and they will accept the interpretation put by the Commons upon a statute affecting their internal proceedings."
7. In The Constitutional History of Modern Britain since 1485 by David Lindsay Keir, it has been said:
"The efficient transaction of business in the House also requires, as it always has, that its proceedings should be protected by Parliamentary privilege. This means that whatever is said or done in the course of its proceedings lies within its own Jurisdiction, exercised primarily by the Speaker, and is not actionable elsewhere."
"It is settled law that the House of Commons is not responsible to any external authority for following the rules it lays down for itself for the transaction of its own business. It is open to the House to depart from them at its own discretion. Even where the procedure of the House or the right of the members to take part in its proceedings is dependent on statute and this is important the House is immune from scrutiny by Courts as to the manner in which it interprets them. It follows from this that for such purposes the House can practically change or supersede the law."
10. In Jaisingh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 P&H 379, a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court held :
"The Legislative Assembly is supreme and has exclusive control and jurisdiction in alt its internal affairs and is the sole Judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings, so that no part of its proceedings concerning the suspension of the petitioners is Justifiable in Court."
11. In M. S. M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha, AIR 1960 SC 1186, the Supreme Court held that:
"The validity of the proceedings inside the Legislature of a State cannot be called in question on the allegation that the procedure laid down by the law had not been strictly followed. No Court can go into those questions which are within the special Jurisdiction of the Legislature itself, which has the power to conduct its own business."
The same view has been taken by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in K. A. Mathtalagan v. P. Srinivasan, AIR 1973 Mad 371.
12. In Raj Narain v. Atmaram Govind (supra), Sapru, J., dealt with several English decisions in support of the above proposition and quoted the views of various English Judges thereon.
Thus, Lord Denman remarked "Whatever is done within the walls of either assembly must pass without question in any other place'.
Similarly Patteson, J. observed "Beyond all dispute, it is necessary that the proceedings of each House of Parliament should be entirely free and unshackled that whatever is said or done in either House should not be liable to examination elsewhere".
Sapru, J., also referred to May's Parliamentary Practice and other authorities in support of this proposition.
13. The principle that what is said and done in the House cannot be questioned by the Court or other authority (except to the extent referred to in Keshav Singh's case. AIR 1965 SC 745) has a historical background. Upto the 16th Century, the House of Commons was not really independent, and even up to the early 17th century, it often happened that the King would arrest or intimidate members of the House of Commons who spoke against the King inside the House of Commons or incurred his displeasure in some way. On occasions, the King or his officers even entered the House of Commons and arrested the members who had spoken against the King or incurred his displeasure. This made freedom of speech very difficult for the members of Parliament, and hence in the 17th century, there was a struggle between King and Parliament, each asserting their authority. Ultimately. Parliament won, and the principle was settled that no external authority can examine anything said or done in the House of Commons.
14. Thus, in Dicey's 'An introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution' ft has been said :
That the judicial process does not lie where Parliament has exclusive Jurisdiction has been recognised by decisions of the Courts. It is more than seventy years since Mr. Justice Stephen in Bradlaugh v. Gossett, (1884) 12 QBD 271, examining the area of judicial control over the matters relating to the internal procedure of the House of Commons, recognised that its privilege of regulating its own internal proceedings invested it with a judicial character. No Court today would seriously challenge that matters concerning the proceedings within either House are to be discussed and adjudged in that House and not elsewhere."
15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the prayer made in this petition are not matters for Judicial review. The Constitution strikes a delicate balance between matters pertaining to the Legislature. Executive and the Judiciary, and Court should exercise self-restraint in matters which are outside their Jurisdiction, otherwise the balance will be upset.
16. In view of the above this petition is dismissed.