New Delhi, Sep 20 (IANS) The power to expel a member is part of parliament's powers to punish disrespect and affronts, Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian argued before the Supreme Court Wednesday.

He made this submission on behalf of Attorney General Milon Banerjee before a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and judges K.G. Balakrishnan, C.K. Thakker, R.V. Raveendran and D.K. Jain.

The bench is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the expulsion of 10 Lok Sabha members and one Rajya Sabha member in December after a TV news channel's sting operation showed them accepting bribes to raise specific questions in parliament.

While issuing notice to the central government, the court had asked the attorney general to assist it since important questions of law were raised in the petitions. Subramanian represented the attorney general and made his submissions.

Quoting various precedents, he said: "Acceptance of bribe by a member to influence his conduct as a member is contempt. Each house would have an interest in the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity."

Subramanian said: "The power of expulsion is a part of the powers of the house but could also have been incorporated in a statute. In the absence of any statute dealing with expulsion, the power of expulsion remains a part of the surviving powers.

"The Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951, are statutes, which prescribe disqualifications. Such laws made by parliament are intended to terminate qualifications by events of disqualification and also empower courts of justice to try controversial elections.

"However, the act does not abrogate the entirety of privileges. It certainly could not abrogate the fundamental freedoms of parliament, which are, as well, its privileges."

In his written submissions, he said that it was necessary for parliament to protect faith and confidence in the institution.

"The powers and privileges are, truly speaking, as ingrained in the constituent power of parliament. Therefore, it is necessary that such powers and privileges must be upheld. There could hardly be any doubt that the Indian legislatures have the power of punishing for contempt.

"In view of the nature of the constitutional immunity under Article 105, it is essential that there must exist a privilege which is capable of being treated as an inbuilt safeguard against the abuse of free speech.

"That safeguard can be done only by parliament either in exercise of its powers and privileges or by codified statute law. In the absence of a positive law, powers and privileges would be sufficiently available as constitutional authority."

Arguments will continue Thursday.