It appears there's a misunderstanding. Article 88 of the Constitution of India does not represent a court case. It is a constitutional provision outlining the rights of Ministers and the Attorney-General of India with respect to the Houses of Parliament. Therefore, a case summary is not applicable. However, I can provide a summary of Article 88 itself.

Subject: Article 88 of the Constitution of India

Short Summary Article 88 of the Constitution of India grants certain rights to Ministers and the Attorney-General regarding the Houses of Parliament, including the right to speak in and otherwise take part in the proceedings of either House, any joint sitting of the Houses, and any committee of Parliament of which they may be named a member, but without being entitled to vote.

Content Article 88 outlines the rights of Ministers and the Attorney-General of India as follows:

• Every Minister and the Attorney-General of India shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, either House, any joint sitting of the Houses, and any committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member, but shall not by virtue of this article be entitled to vote.

Purpose The purpose of Article 88 is to allow Ministers and the Attorney-General to participate in parliamentary proceedings and committees even if they are not members of either House. This allows the government to present its views and legal opinions effectively, and allows Parliament to benefit from the expertise of these individuals. However, it explicitly denies them the right to vote, as they are not elected representatives.