Suspension Of MLA Beyond Ongoing Session Unconstitutional As Constituency Remains Unrepresented: Supreme Court

While quashing the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly's resolution which suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a period of one year for alleged disorderly behaviour in the house, the Supreme Court has opined that in exercise of inherent power of the House, the suspension of the members could not have, in any case, exceeded the remainder period of the ongoing Session.

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar has observed that representative cannot be kept away from the House in the guise of suspension beyond the necessary (rational) period linked to the ongoing Assembly Session, including the timeline referred to in Article 190(4) of the Constitution and Section 151A of Representation of People Act 1951.

While noting that the concerned Session concluded long back in July 2021, the Bench has held that suspension beyond the remainder of the ongoing Session in which the resolution was passed, is nullity, unconstitutional and grossly illegal and irrational. Therefore, the same cannot be given effect to beyond the remainder period of the concerned Session and must be regarded as non est in the eyes of law beyond that period.

Not A Case Of Mere Procedural Irregularity By Legislature:

The Bench held that the impugned resolution suffers from the vice of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal and irrational to the extent of period of suspension beyond the remainder of the concerned (ongoing) Session. Further, the court found that it is not a case of mere procedural irregularity committed by the Legislature within the meaning of Article 212(1) of the Constitution.

Suspension In Excess Of Period Essential Antithesis To Rational Or Objective Standard Approach:

The Court has held that the decision taken by the House in the present case, is one of substantive illegality in directing suspension beyond the period of the remainder of the Session in which the motion was presented.

The Bench has concluded the same observing that the period of suspension in excess of the period essential to do so much less in a graded manner including on principle underlying Rule 53  of the Assembly Rules would be an antithesis to the rational or objective standard approach for ensuring orderly functioning of the House during the ongoing Session. 

Incorrect Procedure Adopted:

According to the Court, it is evident from the impugned resolution that it has been passed by the majority votes in the House immediately after it was put to vote by the Chairman. 

However, it was introduced as a motion for initiating action for having committed contempt of the House which ordinarily ought to have proceeded under Part XVIII of the Rules dealing with Privileges. Further, that would have required the constitution of a Committee of Privileges to enquire into the entire matter by giving an opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned.

The Bench has observed that instead of adopting that procedure, the House itself chose to direct withdrawal of the petitioners from the meetings of the Assembly for a period of one year, which direction is neither ascribable to the dispensation prescribed in Part XVIII of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules or Rule 53 enabling the Speaker to do so

Inherent Power of Legislature Can Be Resorted Only To Extent Necessary:

The Court has observed that in absence of any express provision bestowing power in the Legislature to suspend its members beyond the term of the ongoing Session, the inherent power of the Legislature can be invoked only to the extent necessary and for the proper exercise of the functions of the House at the relevant point of time and for nothing more.

According to the Bench, for that purpose, it could resort to protective and self­ defensive powers alone and not punitive at all.

Legislature Expected To Adhere To "Express Substantive Stipulation": 

The Bench has pointed out the legal exposition that the Rules framed by the Legislative Assembly under Article 208 of the Constitution is the procedure established by law for the purpose of Article 21 of the Constitution

The Court has observed that even though the Legislature has the prerogative to deviate from the rules and alter them, it is expected to adhere to the "express substantive stipulation" (which is not mere procedure) in the rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution and the principle underlying therein, being procedure established by law.

House Expected To Adopt graded (rational and objective standard) Under Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules:

The Court noted that if the House takes upon itself to discipline its members, it is expected to adopt the same graded (rational and objective standard) approach on the lines predicated in Rule 53 of the Assembly Rules. That would be a case of rational action taken by the House as per the procedure established by law.

According to the Court, the approach predicated in Rule 53 is the benchmark to be observed by the Speaker to enable him to ensure smooth working of the House, without any obstruction or impediment and for keeping the recalcitrant member away from the House for a period maximum upto the remainder of the entire Session.

Expulsion Allows Member To Get Re-Elected, Suspension Leads To Unnecessary Deprivation:

The Bench observed that if the House had ended up with resolution of expulsion of the member, that action would not visit the member with disqualification and also allow him to get re­elected from the same constituency within the statutory period of six months from the date of vacation of his seat.

However, if it is a case of suspension for a period beyond the remainder of the Session, it would entail in unnecessary deprivation.

Longer & Excessive Deprival Not Just Irrational But Also Violative Of Constitution:

According to the Court, longer or excessive deprival would not only be regarded as irrational but closer to or bordering on perversity. Resultantly, such an action would be violative of procedure established by law and also manifestly arbitrary, grossly irrational and illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Bench has observed that the sweep of Article 21 is expansive enough to govern the action of dismembering a member from the House of the Legislative Assembly in the form of expulsion or be it a case of suspension by directing withdrawal from the meeting of the Assembly for the remainder of the Session.

Long Suspension Bound To Affect Rights Harsher Than Expulsion:

The Bench has observed that long suspension is bound to affect the rights harsher than expulsion wherein a mid­term election is held within the specified time in terms of Section 151A of the 1951 Act, not later than six months.

"Suffice it to observe that one­year suspension is worse than "expulsion", "disqualification" or "resignation" — insofar as the right of the constituency to be represented before the House/Assembly is concerned." the Bench said

Exercise of Power By Legislature Would Be Rendered Unconstitutional In Case Of Infraction Of Rights Under Para III of the Constitution:

The Court has stated that while the Constitution, by itself, does not specify the limitation on the privileges of the Legislature, but, indubitably, those privileges are subject to the provisions of the Constitution.

This is predicated in the opening part of Article 194(1) and in Article 208(1) requiring the House of the Legislature to make rules for regulating its procedure which ought to include the rights guaranteed to the citizens under Part III of the Constitution.

"The moment it is demonstrated that it is a case of infraction of any of the rights under Para III of the Constitution including ascribable to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the exercise of power by the Legislature would be rendered unconstitutional." the Bench has said.

Some of the quotes from the judgment :

While making these observations and giving these reasons, the Supreme Court has allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by the 12 MLAs challenging the assembly resolution.