''Highly Excessive' : Supreme Court Quashes Bihar Legislative Council's Decision To Expel RJD MLC For Comments Against Nitish Kumar

The Supreme Court today set aside the decision of the Bihar Legislative Council to expel RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh for making defamatory words against Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.

Although the Court observed that Singh's conduct was "abhorrent" and "unbecoming", it held the punishment of expulsion to be "highly excessive" and "disproportionate." The expulsion violated not only Singh's rights but also the rights of the electorate represented by him.

The Court held that the seven months of expulsion already undergone by him should be deemed as suspension and appropriate punishment for Singh's misconduct. The Court clarified that it has interfered with the Council's decisions only to the extent of the nature of the punishment. The judgment should not be construed as a condonation of his conduct.

The Court also quashed the notification issued by the Election Commission of India for holding bye-election to the seat held by Singh. The Court also cautioned Singh against making such comments in future.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh pronounced the verdict, after having reserved orders on January 29. The main conclusions from the judgment are as follows :

1. There is no absolute bar in calling into question the decisions taken by the legislature. Proceedings in the legislature and legislative decisions are distinct and regarding the latter, the bar for judicial review under Article 212 of the Constitution may not be applicable. Judicial review of legislative decisions is not an encroachment of the legislative domain.

2. The decisions of the Ethics Committee of the Legislative Council are not part of the legislative functions and hence, they are not immune from judicial review.

3. The proportionality of the punishment imposed by the Legislative Council can be reviewed by the Courts. Imposing a disproportionate punishment undermines democratic values and also affects the electorate. The judgment outlined principles which the Court should consider while ascertaining if the punishments are proportionate.

4. The demeanour of the petitioner was "abhorrent" and "unbecoming of a member of the council". Notwithstanding his conduct, the Court observed that the Council ought to have exercised magnanimity. The expulsion of the petitioner not only violates his fundamental rights but also violates the rights of the electorate.  The punishment meted out to the petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct attributed to him. A more balanced measure should have been adopted by the house.

5. Though the matter could be remitted back to the house to decide the quantum of punishment, the Court said that the special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked to substitute the punishment. 

Background

To recap, the allegation in the case pertained to Singh's use of the word "Palturam" in respect of Nitish Kumar. According to Singh, the word was used by his colleague-MLC as well, but only he was permanently expelled from the Council (while the colleague was only temporarily suspended for 2 days). The remark was not such a serious transgression as would justify "permanent expulsion" - a drastic remedy - contended Singh.

He further claimed violation of principles of natural justice, while informing that neither the relevant video recording was shared with him nor he given a chance to speak in the House at the time of his expulsion. On the maintainability of his writ petition, he placed reliance on certain judicial precedents including Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) and urged that Parliament's acts are amenable to judicial scrutiny.

Singh also drew the Court's attention to the fact that the report (dated June 14) of the Committee constituted by the House came within 2 days of a meeting (dated June 12) where the Committee Chairman informed him that the proceedings were at a preliminary stage and charges against him would be determined after reviewing all material. Questioning the manner in which the Committee conducted its affairs, and imputing malafides, Singh underlined that the Report was signed only by 4 out 7 Committee members.

The Council, on the other hand, argued that Singh was suspended by the House on an earlier occasion as well on account of his misconduct. As regards his allegation that he was not supplied relevant video-clips/material, it was claimed that the material would have been shown to him if he attended the meetings, but the same did not happen. Referring to Raja Ram Pal, the Council further averred that in the said case, a Constitution Bench had said that the court would not go into doctrine of proportionality. Also, it pointed out that Singh questioned the constitution of the Committee itself (which was constituted by the House) and the capacity of the members to hear his case, since he was the Chief Whip of his party and a State Minister.

During the hearing on January 6, when the Council claimed that the allegations were not centred on mere use of the word "Palturam" and rather, there was use of caricature as well, Justice Kant remarked in a lighter vein, "this is how humor works in politics". Be that as it may, the judge struck a note of caution that "even while dissenting, one must be disrespectful".

Later, the day orders were reserved in the case, it was argued on behalf of Singh that several newspapers carried the word "Palturam" referring to Nitish Kumar. However, Justice Kant noted that unlike media entities, Singh was a responsible member of the House expected to lead people by example. In response, Singh's lawyers contended that even so, the punishment of permanent expulsion was extreme and wholly unwarranted.

The alleged incident happened during the budget session that took place in February, 2024. The expulsion was made on the basis of a recommendation made by the Ethics Committee of the council. Amongst the accusations against Singh were calling the Chief Minister "Palturam" and imitating him.

The recommendation of the committee, inter-alia, stated:

“As the Chief Whip of the Opposition, his legislative Responsibility should be more towards the policies, rules and constitutional authority of the House. But he did not follow this in his conduct and behaviour. His efforts to come to the well of the House and raise unrestrained slogans, disrupt the House, disobey the Chair's direction, and insult the Leader of the House by using defamatory and rude words have hurt the dignity of the Upper House.”

“Under clause 10 (d) of Rule 290 of the Bihar Legislative Council's Procedure and Conduct of Business Rules, the Committee recommends unanimously/majority that Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh be relieved from the membership of the Bihar Legislative Council.”

Against the above projection, Singh filed the present writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking to quash the report as illegal and unconstitutional. Further, he sought a direction for not declaring an election pursuant to vacancy arising notification.

In August, 2024, the Supreme Court issued notice on the petition but refused to pass any interim order. On January 15, the Court directed that the results of the Bihar Legislative Council Bye-Elections, notified to fill vacancy arising upon expulsion of Singh, be withheld.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Dr AM Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for petitioner); Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar (for Bihar Legislative Council)

Case Details: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH v. BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 530/2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment