BJP MLAs Move Supreme Court Challenging Maharashtra Legislative Assembly's Resolution Of Suspending Them For 1 Year

BJP MLAs who were suspended from Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for a period of 1 year have approached the Supreme Court challenging the resolution dated July 5, 2021 passed by the Legislative Assembly ("impugned resolution").

The writ petition was listed today before the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar. However due to paucity of time, the same was adjourned to Tuesday on the request of MLA's counsel Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi.

It has been argued that the impugned resolution was passed in abject violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as no opportunity of hearing or at least furnishing their written explanation was given to the MLA's.

The MLAs have also contended that a perusal of the impugned resolution shows that there has been utter non-application of mind in as much there was no material available for identifying the 12 MLA's from a large crowd of people.

Incident Dated July 5, 2021

The petition stated that the monsoon session of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly was scheduled to be held on July 5, 2021 and July 6, 2021 and the house was being presided over by such a Chairman nominated under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, 1960 (MLS Rules). In this regard it has further been stated that the business of the House was being transacted in a totally unilateral manner, where the members of the Opposition were being denied the opportunity to raise important questions and to express their views on matters of public importance. no opportunity to speak.

"On one such occasion, when a Minister was moving a resolution in relation to the empirical data pertaining to the OBC, the Hon'ble Leader of Opposition objected to the same. The Chairman presiding over the house, denied an opportunity to the Leader of Opposition to express his views on the matter which led to heated exchanges between the members on both sides and consequently the house was adjourned," the petition also stated.

It was further stated that when the members of the opposition went to the chamber of the Deputy Speaker to point out the unfair attitude of the Chairman nominated under Rule 8, the concerned Chairman came there and started abusing the members of the Opposition which again led to heated exchanges. This led to a motion for suspension of 12 MLAs including the petitioner being moved by the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs which was put to vote.

Filed through Advocate on Record Abhikalp Pratap Singh, the petitioners have relied on Rule 53 of the MLS Rules which covers the Suspension of Members for unruly behaviour. In this regard, it has been stated that the power under Rule 53 is to be exercised solely by the Speaker after complying with the principles of natural justice and fair play.

Contentions that the Chairman erred in putting the resolution for voting and motion for unruly behavior can never be a subject matter of voting since that would enable the Government to virtually wipe out the opposition on any minor acts by suspending as many members of the opposition as it deems fit that have also been made in the writ.

"It is reiterated that power under Rule 53 of the MLS Rules which applies to suspension of unruly behavior is solely exercisable by the speaker. This provision is engrafted to put a check on the majoritarian attitude of the Government which obviously enjoys a majority in the house. Thus, the power is made exercisable solely by the Speaker in as much as the Speaker is expected to act fairly towards both sides. Motion for unruly behavior can never be a subject matter of voting since that would enable the Government to virtually wipe out the opposition on any minor acts by suspending as many members of the opposition as it deems fit," petition states in this regards.

Grounds For Quashing The Impugned Resolution

The petitioners have submitted that the impugned resolution deserves to be quashed based on the following grounds:

• Resolution was passed with undue haste by completely brushing aside Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Relying on the Top Court's judgement in Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj and Ors. VS Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and Anr reported in (2016) 6 SCC 82 petitioners have contended that it was incumbent upon the Legislative Assembly to grant an opportunity or atleast call for a written explanation from the MLAs.
• The official video recording would show that the Chairman had admitted from the Chair that some members of Shiv Sena were also present in the Speaker's Chamber and were involved in the incident and thus there was absolutely no material before the Minister or Chairman to sustain action of MLAs suspension. The Minister who brought the motion was not even present in the Speaker's chamber.
• Resolution dated July 5, 2021 did not refer to any material on the basis of which the action for MLAs suspension was taken and was brought for alleged unruly behaviour on the floor of the house and outside the Chamber of the Speaker and not for Breach of Privilege.

Case Title: Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly And Anr.| W.P.(C) No. 797/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order