The Constitution of India
Article 122
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.
Why this exists
The framers wanted Parliament to function as an independent, self-governing body, free from constant judicial interference in its day-to-day procedural workings — similar to the British parliamentary tradition of exclusive cognizance over its own proceedings. This lets the House sort out its internal rules, debates, and discipline without courts second-guessing every technical procedural choice, while still keeping the door open for courts to intervene in cases of serious illegality or violation of fundamental rights (which Article 122 does not shield).
How courts read it
The Supreme Court has distinguished between mere 'irregularity of procedure' (protected under Article 122) and outright 'illegality' or unconstitutionality (not protected). In Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha (2007), concerning MPs expelled after a cash-for-query sting, the Court held that while it would not examine internal procedural irregularities, it could still judicially review whether the expulsion violated constitutional provisions or fundamental rights. Courts have thus read Article 122 as a shield against interference in internal procedural matters, not as blanket immunity from all judicial scrutiny.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Article 122 means courts can never review anything Parliament does.
Fact: Courts have held that only 'irregularities of procedure' are protected — genuine illegality or violation of the Constitution or fundamental rights can still be reviewed. - Myth: This Article gives individual MPs personal immunity from all lawsuits.
Fact: It only protects officers/members from court jurisdiction regarding their specific constitutional powers to regulate procedure or maintain order, not general immunity from law.