"No Prima Facie Illegality" : Telangana High Court Refuses To Stay Suspension Of BJP MLAs From Assembly

The present plea was filed by M. Raghunandan Rao, E. Rajender and T. Raja Singh. The petitioners also sought direction to the Speaker to allow them to continue participating in the present ongoing session.

A bench of Dr. Justice Shameem Akhtar, ruled,

"In view of the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of India, this Court has limitations to inquire into the proceedings of the Legislature while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of these circumstances, there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners to hold that the resolution suffers from substantial illegality and jurisdictional error. Further, the alleged unconstitutionality of the resolution also needs a detailed examination."

The court dealt with the question:

"Whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners to grant the relief as sought for?"

The court observed that it is necessary to arrive at a conclusion as to whether there is substantial illegality and jurisdictional error or unconstitutionality in suspending the petitioners from the service of the House. Further, the court opined that even if some of the material on which the action is taken is found to be irrelevant, the Court would still not interfere, so long as there is some relevant material sustaining the action.

The court opined that it cannot be held that a pre-planned scheme was orchestrated by the members of the ruling dispensation in cahoots with the Speaker in suspending the petitioners from the service of the House for the remainder of the Session.

Further, the court also watched the video filed before it and observed that the same is not clear. The court observed,

"The video clipping is focussed on the Finance Minister presenting the Budget. At that point of time, it did not reveal the other happenings in the House. Further, it did not disclose as to what was happening at the Speaker's podium, before the motion was moved by the Animal Husbandry Minister. The Video clipping only disclosed the Finance Minister reading out the Budget speech, Animal Husbandry Minister moving the motion under Rule 340(2) and the Speaker putting the said motion to vote by voice and the Speaker announcing that the motion was carried and that the petitioners were suspended from the House for the remainder of the Session."

Taking reference on the case of Ashish Shelar and others Vs. MaharashtraLegistative Assembly and another, 2022, the court stated that in said case, the suspension of the members was set aside on the ground that the said suspension was beyond the period of remainder of the concerned Session, i.e. for one year. However, in the instant case, the suspension of the petitioners was stated to be for the remainder of the Session, which is in consonance with Rule 340 of the Rules, added the court.

The court noted that the House takes upon itself to discipline its members and is expected to adopt a rational and objective approach on the lines predicated in Rule 340 of the Rules. The court also noted that the word 'rational' literally means 'based on logic rather than emotion', 'attained through clear thinking', 'not absurd, preposterous, foolish, or fanciful', 'able to think clearly and sensibly', 'clear-headed and right-minded'. A priori, if the resolution passed by the House was to provlde for suspension beyond the period prescribed under the stated Rule, it would be substantively illegal, irrational and unconstitutional', added the court. The court further added that in that, the graded (rational and objective standard) approach predicated in Rule 340 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.

The court also observed,

"Concededly, there is nothing in the constitutional scheme or the rules framed under Article 208 to prevent a member of the House to move a motion for directing withdrawal of a member on the ground of his grossly disorderly conduct. Further, if the Speaker can suo motu direct the member to withdraw from the Assembly on the same day instantly to secure smooth functioning of the proceedings, for the same logic, even the House could pass a resolution itself on a motion being moved by a member of the House instantly with the concurrence of the Speaker on such a motion"

It was opined by the court that the Speaker said to have entertained the subject motion moved by the Animal Husbandry Minister and called upon the House to vote thereon, which had the effect of giving tacit consent if not explicit concurrence to the same. In that sense, it is not a case of resolution passed by the House (to suspend its members) as being without jurisdiction, added the court. The court also added that it is a different matter that if the Speaker was to do so, it could be only under Rule 340 of the Rules in a graded manner for the remainder of the day and for repeat misconduct in the same Session, for the remainder of the Session. In fact, that would be a logical and rational approach consistent with the constitutional tenets, stated the court.

Further, the court observed that the manner of enforcement of privileges by the legislature can result in judicial scrutiny, subject to the restrictions contained in the other constitutional provisions like Article 212, which prohibits the validity of any proceedings in the legislature from being called in question in a Court on the ground of irregularity of procedure. The court observed that it would still not interfere, even if some of the material on which the action is taken is found to be irrelevant, so long as there is some relevant material sustaining the action. Moreover, an ouster clause attaching finality to a determination does ordinarily oust the power of the Court to review the decision, but not on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or it being a nullity for some reason such as gross illegality, irrationality, violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity, added the court.

It was also stated by the court that judicial scrutiny regarding exercise of legislative privileges (including power to punish for contempt of the House) is constricted and cannot be stricto sensu on the touchstone of judicial review as generally understood in other situations. The constitutional system of government abhors absolutism and it being the cardinal principle of our Constitution that no one, howsoever lofty, can claim to be the sole Judge of the power given under the Constitution, mere coordinate constitutional status, even the status of an exalted constitutional functionaries, does not disentitle the constitutional Court from, exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review of actions, which partake the character of judicial or quasi- judicial decision, noted the court.

Case Title: M. Raghunandan Rao & Ors. v. The Telangana Legislative Assembly & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 21

Click Here To Read/Download Order