(a) What are the powers, privileges and immunities of Houses of Parliament in India? Do they have the power to expel any of their…

Parliamentary privileges and expulsion Article 105 gives Houses of Parliament freedom of speech (105(1)), protection for proceedings and publications made by or under parliamentary authority (105(2)), and provides that powers, privileges and immunities of Houses, members and committees are to be defined by Parliament by law (105(3)), continuing as under the Government of India Act, 1935. Privileges protect Parliament’s dignity and effective functioning, not personal immunity. They include freedom from arrest in civil matters during sessions and the power to punish contempt or breach of privilege.

A House may expel any member for gross misconduct or breach of privilege. In Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007), the Supreme Court affirmed this power but required fair procedure, reasonable hearing and non-arbitrariness. It held Article 122 does not bar judicial review of whether the House acted within its competence; Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillu supports such intra vires review. The counter-argument is that Article 122 bars courts from questioning internal proceedings; the accepted answer is that this bar does not extend to ultra vires acts. Jairam Das v. State is not the controlling authority; Raja Ram Pal and Kihoto Hollohan supply the procedural-fairness and intra vires limits. Review does not permit re-weighing evidence, but the basic structure applies to parliamentary power; Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala shows constitutional limits cannot be destroyed by privilege. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998) had given wide immunity to parliamentary statements, but Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) overruled that broad immunity, holding privilege does not shield criminal liability for bribery or corruption.

DPSP and legislation Article 37 makes the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) non-justiciable but fundamental in governance, imposing a duty on the State to apply them in making laws. MGNREGA, 2005 implements Article 41 by guaranteeing public works and wage employment. The Right to Education Act, 2009 implements Article 21A and the pre-86th Amendment Article 45, providing free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14; after the 86th Amendment, Article 45 was recast for early childhood care below six, which RTE does not itself implement. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 gives effect to Article 46 by protecting weaker sections, including tribal communities, and their forest rights. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 implements Article 39(d) by prohibiting sex-based discrimination in pay. These enactments show DPSP as a normative guide to legislation.

Basic structure and amendment The Constituent Assembly’s “facile” remark reflected the original Article 368 procedure’s simplicity. Early decisions such as Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan treated amendment as plenary. Although A.K. Gopalan is associated with the early no-implied-limitations approach to fundamental rights, it did not decide Article 368; the relevant cases were Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, and the plenary view was displaced by Kesavananda. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala held that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure, significantly limiting Article 368. Waman Rao v. Union of India affirmed that post-Kesavananda amendments, including the 24th Amendment, can be tested against the basic structure. Minerva Mills v. Union of India placed judicial review, rule of law and the FR-DPSP balance beyond amendment. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India recognised federalism and secularism as basic features. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain struck down Article 329A, inserted by the 39th Amendment, as violating the basic structure. In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the 2014 NJAC amendment was struck down as impairing judicial independence.

Thus, privilege protects Parliament but not abuse; DPSP guides legislation without direct enforceability; and the basic structure ensures amendment changes the Constitution without destroying its identity.