Rules Made To Exercise Powers And Privileges Of State Legislature Constitute Law Within The Meaning Of Article 13: Supreme Court

In its judgment quashing Maharashtra Assembly's Resolution to suspend 12 BJP MLAs, the Supreme Court held that the rules made to exercise the powers and privileges of State Legislature constitute law within the meaning of Article 13.

"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 bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar observed.

The court was examining the contention raised by the State that the rules made under Article 208 of the Constitution are neither statutory rules nor binding on the House. 

"It is settled law that even rules made to exercise the powers and privileges of State Legislature constitute law within the meaning of Article 13. This is exposited in Special Reference No.1 of 1964 . It is held that when the State Legislatures purport to exercise this power, they will undoubtedly be acting under Article 246 read with Entry 39 of List II. The enactment of such a law will, therefore, have to be treated as a law within the meaning of Article 13. In the backdrop of these observations, the plea taken by the State that the rules are neither statutory rules nor binding on the House will be of no avail.", the court observed.

The bench further added that the rules so framed can be altered by the House at any time. But, until the rules are altered, the House is ordinarily guided by the procedure prescribed in the rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution.

"At the same time, proceedings inside the Legislature cannot be called into question on the ground that the same have not been carried on in accordance with the rules of business as restated in Kihota Hollohon . It is, however, enough for the present to observe that the rules framed under Article 208 acquire the status of procedure established by law for the purpose of Article 21 of the Constitution as noticed in M.S.M. Sharma. This observation has been quoted with approval by another Constitution Bench again in Raja Ram Pal", the court observed.