New Delhi, Oct. 13: The Supreme Court today said it was authorised to strike down any law as unconstitutional if Parliament or an Assembly lacked the competence to pass it, prima facie disagreeing that the courts cannot interfere in matters that fall within the legislature's domain.

A five-judge constitution bench said it was aware of the theory of the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary, but asserted that the courts could step in to determine the constitutionality of any statute that involved the life and liberty of citizens.

"Actually, the test has to be what the act contains, whether it goes beyond legislative competence. If it is so, definitely we can strike it down. Can you (Parliament) say (that) lawyers should retire at 60?" Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked senior advocate Harish Salve during the hearing.

He added: "When liberty is affected, definitely the court has a duty to protect...."

The bench, which included Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, was hearing a public interest litigation relating to the administration of an allegedly untested vaccine to 24,000 tribal girls in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat in 2012.

According to petitioner Kalpana Mehta, a social activist, two parliamentary standing committees had commented adversely on the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, which is intended to prevent cervical cancer, but the government had not acted so far in the matter.

Salve, representing one of the two pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccine, questioned the court's power to examine parliamentary committee reports (in its bid to decide the issue). He argued that such reports are the exclusive privilege of Parliament, and the courts should not interfere.

For instance, Salve contended, what a member says in Parliament is controlled by the Speaker and the courts have no jurisdiction to enter into the debate.

"If I say a falsehood in Parliament, who can punish me? Parliament alone has the power to punish me. It is inherent in the institution," Salve said.

He argued that the courts must observe the doctrine of restraint. "Freedom of speech and expression, whether expressed or implied, is implicit in the working of every institution and it is that institution alone which regulates the process," the senior advocate said.

The court said it was not interfering with the powers of Parliament but only examining certain materials to deal with a social problem affecting a large number of people.

It said that if there were reports of female infanticide or a drop in the ratio of girls to boys, the court could always process parliamentary records to learn more about the matter. The arguments remained inconclusive and will resume after a week.