the same as those of the members of the House of Commons as they existed at the time of the commencement of the Constitution. The position about the privileges of the members of the House of Commons as it obtained in the United Kingdom at the relevant time has been stated in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 18th Ed. (p. 100) as under: “The privilege of freedom from arrest is limited to civil causes, and has not been allowed to interfere with the administration of criminal justice or emergency legislation.” The above observations were relied upon by this Court in the case of K. Anandan Nambiar v. Chief Secretary Government of Madras, (1966) 2 SCR 406 = (AIR 1966 SC 657). The petitioners in that case were members of Parliament. They were detained by orders passed by the State Government under R. 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. They challenged the validity of the orders of detention, inter alia, on the ground that Rule 30 (1) (b) was invalid because a legislator cannot be detained so as to prevent him from exercising his constitutional rights as legislator while the legislative chamber to which he belongs is in session. This Court rejected that contention and held that the true constitutional position is that so far as a valid order of detention is concerned, a member of Parliament can claim no special status higher than that of an ordinary citizen and that he is as much liable to be arrested and detained under it as any other citizen. It was also held that if an order of detention validly prevents a member from attending a session of Parliament, no occasion would arise for the exercise by him of the right of freedom of speech. 179. Question as to whether a member of Parliament has been validly detained under a law relating to preventive detention can, in my opinion, be appropriately gone into in proceedings for a writ of habeas corpus. Such question cannot be collaterally raised in proceedings like the present wherein the court is concerned with the validity of a Constitution Amendment Act and an Act to amend the Representation of the People Act. In deciding a case before it the court should decide matters which arise directly in the case. A court should resist the attempt of a party to induce it to decide a matter which though canvassed during arguments is only incidental and collateral and can appropriately be dealt with in separate proceedings. 180. The contention advanced by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that the sittings of the two Houses of Parliament in which the impugned Acts were passed were not valid essentially relates to the validity of the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament. These are matters which are not justiciable and pertain to the internal domain of the two Houses. Of course, the courts can go into the question as to whether the measures passed by Parliament are constitutionally valid. The court cannot, however, go into the question as to whether the sittings of the Houses of Parliament were not constitutionally valid because some members of those Houses were prevented from attending and participating in the discussions in those Houses. It has not been disputed before us, as already mentioned, that the impugned Constitution Amendment