unconstitutionally detains any person the detention affects the validity of the proceedings. A number of member of Parliament of the two Houses namely, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha were detained by executive orders after 26th June, 1975 and before the summoning of a session of the two Houses of Parliament. Parliament commenced the sessions on 21st July, 1975. None of the memebrs of Parliament were either supplied any grounds of detention or given any apportunity to make any respresentation against their detention. The President who was the authority to summon a session of Parliament issued the Presidential Order under Article 359 of the Constituion on 27th June, 1975. The right of the detained members of Parliament to move any court for the enforcement of their fundamental right under Article 22 of the Constitution was taken away by the executive order of the President who became a party to the unconstitutional and illegal detention of the members of Parliament by preventing them from securing their release. 67. The constitutional position of the two Houses of Parliament is governed by the provisions of Articles 79 and 81 of the Constitution. The respondent contends that unless the President convenes a session of the Full Parliament by giving to all members thereof an opportunity to attend the session and exercise their right of speech and vote. The convening of the session will suffer from illegality and unconstitutionality and cannot be regarded as a session of the two Houses of Parliament. Any business transacted in a session of such truncated House cannot, therefore, be regarded in law as a session of a House. 68. The mere fact that a person who is under unconstitutional and illegal detention may be deprived of his right to move a court to secure his release from such illegal detention by means of a Presidntial Order under Article 359 is said by the respondent not to render the detention of a person either legal or constitutional and therefore, such a detenu must be provided an opportunity to participate in the procedings of the House. It is emphasised by the respondent that when important leaders of different parties are unconstitutionally prevented from participating in the session of the House a session cannot be held for deliberations in which different members infuence the views of others by their own participation. If in the holding of a session and in transacting business therein the provisions of the Constitution are not complied with. This is said to amount to illegality or unconstitutionality and not a mere procedural irregularity within the meaning of Article 122 (1) of the Constitution. 69. The essence of the respondent's contention is that the right of participation of some members of the House of Parliament in the proceedings of Parliament under Article 105 (3) of the Constitution has been interfered with. When a member is excluded from participating in the proceedings of the House, that is a matter concerning Parliament and the grievance of exclusion is in regard to proceedings within the walls of Parliament. In regard to rights to be exercise within the walls of the House the House itself is the judge. (See May's Parliamentary Practice 18th Ed. pp. 82-83. (1884) 12 QBD 271 at p 285-286). 70. In Bradlaugh v. Gossett. (1884) 12 QBD 271 Bradlaugh claimed to make affirmation instead of taking the oath. He was permitted to make the affirmation "subject to any liability by statute" and took his seat. Upon an action for penalties it was decided finally by the House of Lords, that Bradlaugh had not qualified himself to sit by making the affirmation. On re-election he attempted to take the oath but