Articles 120, 121 and 122 of the Constitution of India
Articles 120, 121 and 122 are contained in Part V, Chapter II of the Constitution of India. They deal respectively with the language used for parliamentary business, the constitutional restriction on discussion of the conduct of Supreme Court and High Court judges, and the protection given to parliamentary proceedings against challenges based merely on procedural irregularity.
Article 120 - Language to be used in Parliament
Article 120 regulates the language in which business in Parliament is transacted. It operates notwithstanding Part XVII of the Constitution, but is expressly subject to Article 348.
Clause (1): Parliamentary business is to be transacted in Hindi or English. The Chairman of the Council of States, the Speaker of the House of the People, or the person acting as such, may permit a member who cannot adequately express himself or herself in Hindi or English to address the House in the member's mother tongue.
Clause (2): The constitutional text contemplated omission of the words permitting English after fifteen years from commencement unless Parliament provided otherwise by law.
Parliament did provide otherwise. Section 3(1)(b) of the Official Languages Act, 1963 permits English to continue, in addition to Hindi, for the transaction of business in Parliament. Accordingly, English continues to have statutory authorization for parliamentary business.
Article 121 - Restriction on discussion in Parliament
Article 121 places a specific constitutional restriction on discussion in Parliament concerning the conduct of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of judicial duties.
The restriction does not apply when the discussion takes place upon a motion for presenting an address to the President seeking removal of the Judge in accordance with the constitutional removal process.
The provision is therefore directed to discussion of a judge's conduct in the discharge of judicial duties. It preserves the constitutionally specified removal process as the express exception.
Article 122 - Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament
Article 122 concerns the relationship between parliamentary procedure and judicial scrutiny.
Clause (1): The validity of parliamentary proceedings cannot be questioned in court merely on the ground of an alleged irregularity of procedure.
Clause (2): An officer or member of Parliament who is constitutionally vested with powers to regulate parliamentary procedure or business, or to maintain order in Parliament, is protected from court jurisdiction in respect of the exercise of those powers.
Article 122 and the scope of judicial review
Article 122 does not create an unlimited exclusion of judicial review. The Supreme Court has distinguished a protected procedural irregularity from illegality or unconstitutionality. In Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, as later discussed by the Supreme Court, the Court explained that Article 122 bars judicial interference where the complaint is confined to an irregularity of procedure, but it does not make judicial review unavailable where gross illegality or violation of constitutional provisions is shown.
This distinction reflects constitutional supremacy: Parliament has substantial autonomy over its internal proceedings, but constitutional limitations remain relevant where the challenge goes beyond a mere procedural irregularity.
Official legal sources
For authoritative text and current official material, see the Constitution of India on India Code, the Official Languages Act, 1963 on India Code, and the Supreme Court of India Constitution page.
Last reviewed: 18 September 2026. This page is a general legal information resource. For an authoritative legal text, use the official sources linked above.