Supreme Court Issues Notice To Rajya Sabha Secretariat On AAP Leader Raghav Chadha's Plea Challenging Suspension From House

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 16) issued notice on a writ petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Raghav Chadha challenging his suspension from the Rajya Sabha on August 11 during the monsoon session.

A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra issued notice to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and posted the matter to October 30. The bench also required the presence of the Attorney General for India to assist the Court.

During the Monsoon Session, Chadha had moved a motion to refer the Delhi Services Bill to the select committee and named certain MPs as the proposed members of the Committee. It was alleged that Chadha included the names of certain MPs in the motion, without their consent, although they were from parties which were supporting the Bill. Based on a complaint that Chadha's action violated Rule 72 of the Rajya Sabha rules, the Rajya Sabha Chairman suspended him, pending enquiry by the Committee of Privileges.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Chadha, said that it was an "issue of national importance". He raised certain questions :

1. Whether there is any justification to suspend a Member of Parliament pending enquiry;

2. Whether such an order could be passed after the matter is referred to the privilege committee based on the same grounds for the purpose of examination, investigation and report;

3. Whether, assuming that rule 72 has been breached by the petitioner by the fact that he did not ascertain the willingness of the MPs who were proposed to nominated to the select committee, would it in any case amount to a breach of privilege of the house;

4. Whether Rule 256 and Rule 266 empower the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to pass an order of suspension pending inquiry? In any case, for such a breach would rule of proportionality would apply;

5. Whether a Member of Parliament can be suspended in any event for such a breach; whether the suspension is disproportionate and arbitrary violating Article 14 of the Constitution;

6 Whether, in view of Rule 297, such an order passed will be in breach of privileges;

7. Whether the freedom of speech within the Parliament protected by Article 105 and freedom of speech outside the Parliament protected by Article 19(1)(a)  encompass the presentation of views within the Parliament;

Dwivedi argued that Rule 266 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha Rules) only empowers the Chairman to issue general directions and invoking this power, the Chairman cannot suspend a member.

Dwivedi further argued that a Select Committee must be a multi-party committee and its members are appointed by the Council itself. A member can only propose certain members and Chadha's motion was to that effect only. He claimed that in past, there are 11 incidents of motions for select committee being moved citing the names of proposed members without ascertaining their willingness. If the members say that they are not willing, then their names are dropped and someone else is appointed. He contended that this has been the settled convention and no member has faced any action for proposing select committee members without their consent. With respect to Chadha's motion, it was in any case defeated.

Advocate-on-Record Shadan Farasat, also appearing for Chadha, said that there is no 'privilege' existing in respect of the incident and hence there cannot be a "breach of privilege". He also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashish Shelar v. State of Maharashtra (2022) which held that a member of the house cannot be suspended beyond a session.

As the bench indicated its willingness to issue notice, Dwivedi said that he is not seeking any interim relief.

Case Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1155/2023