In a recent Supreme Court judgment dealing with the determination of the Court’s power to review the decision of the Bihar Legislative Council to expel one of its members—Dr Sunil Kumar Singh—from the membership of the House on account of calling Nitish Kumar paltu ram, among other things, the Court made certain important remarks on the interpretation Article 212 of the Indian Constitution. Beyond the facts of this case and the question of expulsion—and punishment in general—of the members of legislative assemblies, these observations are of critical relevance to other matters concerning the relationship of the legislature with the judiciary and the scope of judicial oversight of legislative actions. One such matter is the scope of judicial review of the Speaker’s decisions, including that of certifying a bill as a money bill. In the following paragraphs, I show how the interpretative framework adopted by the Court to creatively delimit the boundaries of Article 212 could help it answer the question about its power to review the decisions of the Speaker in the affirmative.