JUDGMENT Heard Shri S.P. Anand, the petitioner in person. This is a petition challenging a decision taken by the Chairman of Joint Parliamentary Committee not to throw open as its proceedings to the Press. The petitioner seeks in this petition relief against the Joint Parliamentary Committee and its Chairman. A declaration has been sought that decision not to throw the proceedings open to the Press is unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution. Having heard the petitioner in person at some length we find that this petition is totally misconceived and deserves to be dismissed summarily without notice to the other side. There is no reason why the petitioner should have impleaded Shri P. V. Narsimha Rao, the present Prime Minister of India and the Union of India through its Cabinate Secretary. The only concerned respondents seems to be the Chairman of Joint Parliamentary Committee. The petitioner has not been able to convince us that such a petition can be entertained by this Court. As Esskine Muy observed- "In both Houses of Parliament the practice of delegating to small bodies of members regarded as representing the House itself, the consideration of questions, which, as involving points of detail or questions of a technical nature, are unsuited to the House as a whole, is as old as any part of the settled procedure" The system also serves to have division of labour. Besides objects, the committees have also come to exercise functions in furtherance of the Parliament's primary role of control and supervision over the Executive. In other words, the committees are so to say, a further instrument in the hands of Parliaments to make the Government behave." The above is the excerpt from page 218 of the Book of Shri S.H. Belavadi, Author theory and Practice of PARLIAMENT AR Y PROCEDURE IN INDIA' published by A.M. Tripathi Private Limited 1988 Bombay. In the same book it is further observed as follows: "There are no direct provisions in the Indian Constitution from the Constitution of Parliamentary Committees. Under Articles 75 (3) and 164 (2), the Governments at the Centre and in the States are made responsible to the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies respectively. This constitutes the main source of power of the. Parliament and the State Legislatures to control all Governmental Activities. Under Articles 75 (3) and 164 (2), the Governments at the Centre and in the States are made responsible to the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies respectively. This constitutes the main source of power of the. Parliament and the State Legislatures to control all Governmental Activities. Articles 105 and 194 deal with the powers, privileges and immunities of the House and its committees at the Centre and in the States. So also Articles 118 and 208 empower each House at the Centre and in the States to make its own rules of procedure arid conduct of business. Accordingly each House has framed its rules of procedure and conduct of business whereunder several committees have been constituted and also their powers, functions and working regulated. " It is obvious from the aforesaid provisions that a committee of the Houses or the House of the Parliament can prescribe or adopt its own procedure for conduct of its business. There is no law prescribing the procedure for such committees and it is only in the rules framed by the Parliament and its committees which govern the procedure to be followed by the committees. Moreover, the business of the committee is nothing but the business of a house of Parliament or both the houses of Parliament. The Committees derive its power through the Parliament alone and the business of the committee can be said to be the business of the Parliament itself carried out under a delegated power of the Parliament, one of the house of the Parliament or both the houses of the Parliament The provision of Art. 122 of the Constitution would, therefore, come into play. The Article reads as Under: 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. It is, therefore, clear that the proceedings of the committee being carried out under the authority of the Parliament, this Court cannot interfere with the same because of the prohibition contained in Art. 122 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, clear that the proceedings of the committee being carried out under the authority of the Parliament, this Court cannot interfere with the same because of the prohibition contained in Art. 122 of the Constitution. For the aforesaid reasons we have no jurisdiction to entertain this petition and, therefore, we dismiss it without notice to the other side.