The Indian Constitution, under Article 105 for Parliament and Article 194 for State Legislatures, grants certain powers, privileges, and immunities to the Houses of Parliament, their members, and committees. These are essential for the effective functioning, independence, and dignity of the legislative bodies.

Powers, Privileges, and Immunities: Parliamentary privileges can be broadly categorized into collective and individual privileges:

1. Collective Privileges (enjoyed by each House collectively):

• Right to Publish Debates and Proceedings: Each House has the right to publish its reports, debates, and proceedings, and to prohibit others from publishing them. However, media is generally allowed to publish true reports of parliamentary proceedings without prior permission.
• Exclusion of Strangers: Each House can exclude strangers from its proceedings and hold secret sittings in matters of national importance.
• Regulation of Internal Affairs: Each House has the exclusive right to regulate its internal proceedings, maintain order, and decide on its own rules of procedure and conduct of business.
• Punishment for Contempt: Each House can punish its members as well as outsiders for breach of its privileges or for its contempt. This power extends to imposing fines, reprimands, or even imprisonment (for outsiders) and suspension or expulsion (for members).
• Inquiry and Summoning: Each House can institute inquiries, send for persons and papers, and compel attendance of witnesses.
• Freedom from Judicial Interference: Courts are generally barred from inquiring into the proceedings of Parliament on grounds of procedural irregularity (Article 122).

2. Individual Privileges (enjoyed by members individually):

• Freedom of Speech: Members have freedom of speech in Parliament and its committees, and nothing said or any vote given by them in Parliament can be questioned in any court (Article 105(2)).
• Freedom from Arrest: Members cannot be arrested in civil cases during the session of Parliament and for a period of forty days before and forty days after the session. This privilege does not extend to criminal cases or preventive detention.
• Exemption from Jury Service: Members are exempt from jury service while Parliament is in session.

Power to Expel Members for Breach of Privileges: Yes, both Houses of Parliament possess the power to expel their members for breach of privilege or contempt of the House. This power is considered inherent to maintain the dignity, authority, and decorum of the legislative body. The rationale is that a member who acts in a manner that brings disrepute to the institution or obstructs its functioning can be removed to preserve the integrity of Parliament. A notable instance was the expulsion of 11 members of Parliament in 2005 in the 'Cash for Query' scam.

Judicial Review of Expulsion: The question of whether such expulsions are subject to judicial review has been a subject of significant debate and judicial pronouncements. Historically, courts were reluctant to interfere with the internal proceedings of Parliament, citing Article 122, which states that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called into question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.

However, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha (2007), clarified the position. The Court held that while Parliament has the power to regulate its internal proceedings and punish for contempt, this power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The Court ruled that an expulsion of a member, being a grave matter affecting the representation of a constituency, is amenable to judicial review on certain grounds, such as:

• Illegality: If the expulsion is unconstitutional or ultra vires the powers of Parliament.
• Irrationality: If the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable body would have reached it.
• Procedural Impropriety: If there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice (e.g., denial of a fair hearing).
• Mala Fide Intent: If the decision is taken with malice or for extraneous considerations.

The Court emphasized that while it would not delve into procedural irregularities, it would intervene if there was a substantive illegality or a fundamental breach of constitutional principles. This judgment established a crucial balance: upholding parliamentary autonomy while ensuring that its actions, especially those impacting fundamental rights and democratic representation, are not beyond the pale of constitutional scrutiny. Thus, expulsions for breach of privilege are indeed subject to judicial review, albeit on limited and well-defined grounds.