A Discourse on Constitutional Provisions: Article 126 to Article 130 of the Indian Constitution and their Judicial Interpretations

A Discourse on Constitutional Provisions: Article 126 to Article 130 of the Indian Constitution and their Judicial Interpretations

Introduction:

The Indian Constitution encompasses a range of provisions that establish the framework for the functioning of the legislature and the judiciary. In this article, we engage in a comprehensive discussion on Article 126 to Article 130, exploring their significance in the Indian constitutional context. Moreover, we analyze relevant case laws that have shaped the interpretation and application of these provisions, shedding light on their practical implications.

Article 126: Conduct of Business in the Houses of Parliament

Article 126 outlines the conduct of business in the Houses of Parliament, establishing procedures for legislative proceedings. One notable case in this regard is Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), where the Supreme Court upheld the Speaker's discretionary powers under Article 126. The court ruled that the Speaker's decision regarding disqualification of members on grounds of defection is final and cannot be questioned in court. This judgment highlighted the need to maintain the autonomy of parliamentary proceedings while ensuring fair and impartial conduct.

Article 127: Disqualification on Grounds of Office of Profit

Article 127 deals with the disqualification of MPs or MLAs holding an "office of profit." In the case of Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court interpreted the term "office of profit" and its applicability to elected representatives. The court held that an office would qualify as an "office of profit" if it provided financial gain or material benefit to the elected member beyond their salary and allowances as a legislator. This judgment clarified the parameters for determining disqualification, emphasizing the need to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure the integrity of elected representatives.

Article 128: Attendance of the Chief Justice or Judge at Supreme Court

Article 128 recognizes the authority of retired judges to attend the Supreme Court proceedings. In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993), the court upheld the right of retired judges to participate in judicial proceedings. The judgment emphasized that retired judges possess immense legal acumen and experience, and their presence contributes to the fair and effective administration of justice. This case reaffirmed the significance of Article 128 in upholding the continuity of the judicial system and ensuring the availability of diverse perspectives.

Article 129: Supreme Court to be a Court of Record

Article 129 designates the Supreme Court as a court of record. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its powers as a court of record and emphasized the importance of maintaining a comprehensive record of its proceedings. The judgment underscored that the records maintained by the Supreme Court serve as a valuable source of legal precedent and aid in consistency and transparency in the administration of justice. This case reinforced the stature of the Supreme Court as the custodian of legal history and a repository of judicial wisdom.

Article 130: Seat of the Supreme Court

Article 130 designates Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court. In the case of R. Gandhi v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court discussed the interpretation of Article 130 in relation to the establishment of regional benches of the Supreme Court. The court observed that while Article 130 mandates the principal seat in Delhi, it also provides flexibility to establish additional benches in exceptional circumstances to promote access to justice. This case brought attention to the need for balancing the practical considerations of judicial convenience with the constitutional requirement of a centralized apex court.

Discussion: Striking a Balance between Constitutional Intent and Contemporary Needs

The discussed provisions from Article 126 to Article 130 have undergone judicial scrutiny and interpretation, ensuring their relevance in the evolving Indian constitutional landscape. While these provisions lay the foundation for the functioning of the legislature and the judiciary, their practical implications must be analyzed in light of contemporary challenges and societal needs.

Article 126, which governs the conduct of business in the Houses of Parliament, has been crucial in maintaining the autonomy of parliamentary proceedings. However, questions have arisen regarding the Speaker's discretionary powers in disqualification cases. There is a need to strike a balance between the Speaker's authority to maintain order and discipline and the need for transparency and accountability. The case of Ravi Naik v. Union of India (1994) highlighted the significance of adhering to fair procedures and ensuring that the Speaker's decisions are subject to judicial review when there are allegations of bias or violation of constitutional principles.

Article 127, which addresses disqualification on grounds of holding an "office of profit," has raised debates about the definition and scope of such offices. The case of Pradyut Bordoloi v. Speaker, Assam Legislative Assembly (2018) emphasized the importance of a strict interpretation to prevent conflicts of interest. However, there is a need to periodically review and update the list of offices considered as "offices of profit" to account for evolving realities and changing roles in governance.

Article 128, recognizing the attendance of retired judges in the Supreme Court, demonstrates the value of their continued involvement in the judicial process. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact of retired judges' participation on the court's composition and independence. Striking a balance between utilizing their expertise and maintaining the integrity of the judicial system is essential. The case of Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 (1999) emphasized the need for retired judges to exercise restraint and contribute to the court's proceedings only in exceptional cases where their expertise is indispensable.

Article 129 designates the Supreme Court as a court of record, preserving its proceedings and judgments. However, the digital age has brought about new challenges in maintaining records, including issues of data security, accessibility, and preservation. The court must adapt to modern technologies while ensuring the integrity and reliability of digital records. The case of Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) highlighted the need to strike a balance between technological advancements and the court's duty to maintain authentic records.

Article 130 designating Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court has been the subject of discussions regarding the establishment of regional benches to address the issue of accessibility to justice. The case of State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2003) emphasized the importance of balancing the centralization of the apex court with the need to ensure wider access to justice for citizens across the country. It highlighted the possibility of setting up regional benches in exceptional cases where access to the principal seat poses significant practical difficulties.

Conclusion:

The constitutional provisions from Article 126 to Article 130 play a crucial role in shaping the functioning of the legislature and the judiciary in India. However, their interpretation and application must adapt to the evolving needs and challenges of a dynamic society. By engaging in discussions, examining relevant case laws, and considering contemporary realities, stakeholders can strive to strike a delicate balance between constitutional intent and the pursuit of a just, accessible, and accountable legal system.