No Place For Disorderly Conduct In Parliament Or State Assembly; Disruption Of Legislative Business Disheartening: Supreme Court

While quashing the one-year suspension of 12 BJP MLAs from the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly as disproportionate and arbitrary, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about the legislative business in the house getting disrupted due to disorderly conduct in the House.

"There can be no place for disorderly conduct in the House much less "grossly disorderly". Such conduct must be dealt with sternly for ensuring orderly functioning of the House", the Court said in the Post Script added to the judgment.

At the same time, the Court reminded that the action taken against disorderly conduct "must be constitutional, legal, rational and as per the procedure established by law". In the instant case, the Court noted that the suspension which goes beyond the remainder of the ongoing session was "worse than expulsion" and amounted to punishing the constituency, which is left unrepresented.

Underscoring that Parliament, as well as the State Legislative Assembly, are regarded as sacred places, the Court said that it is disheartening to see the business in house getting incomplete due to disorderly conduct.

"It has become common to hear that the House could not complete its usual scheduled business and most of the time had been spent in jeering and personal attacks against each other instead of erudite constructive and educative debates consistent with the highest tradition of the august body. This is the popular sentiment gaining ground amongst the common man. It is disheartening for the observers. They earnestly feel that it is high time that corrective steps are taken by all concerned and the elected representatives would do enough to restore the glory and the standard of intellectual debates of the highest order, as have been chronicled of their predecessors".

No place for aggression during debates

The judgment authored by Justice Khanwilkar further said :

"Aggression during the debates has no place in the setting of country governed by the Rule of Law. Even a complex issue needs to be resolved in a congenial atmosphere by observing collegiality and showing full respect and deference towards each other. They ought to ensure optimum utilisation of quality time of the House, which is very precious, and is the need of the hour especially when we the people of India that is Bharat, take credit of being the oldest civilisation on the planet and also being the world's largest democracy (demographically). For becoming world leaders and self¬ dependant/reliant, quality of debates in the House ought to be of the highest order and directed towards intrinsic constitutional and native issues confronting the common man of the nation/States, who are at the crossroad of sem esquicentennial or may we say platinum or diamond jubilee year on completion of 75 years post-independence. Being House of respected and honourable members, who are emulated by their ardent followers and elected from their respective constituency, they are expected to show statesmanship and not brinkmanship. In the House, their goal is and must be one — so as to ensure the welfare and happiness of we the people of this nation".

The Court said that it "denounce and discourage proponents of undemocratic activities in the House, by democratically elected representatives".