Supreme Court Outlines Principles To Determine Proportionality Of Punishment Imposed On Member Of Legislature

While setting aside the expulsion of RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh from the Bihar Legislative Council for making derogatory remarks against Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, the Supreme Court emphasised that a punishment imposed on a Member of the Legislature for breach of privileges must be proportionate to the misconduct.

"There is no gainsaid that imposing a disproportionate punishment not only undermines democratic values by depriving the member from participating in the proceedings of the House but also affects the electorates of the constituency who remain unrepresented," observed the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh.

The Court observed that even brief absences can impede a member's ability to contribute to critical legislative discussions and decisions. 

"The removal of a member from the House therefore is a significant issue for both the members and the constituency they represent," the Court said. If the punishment inflicted upon the member concerned appears to be prima facie harsh and disproportionate, Constitutional Courts owe a duty to undo such gross injustice and review the proportionality of such disqualifications or expulsions.

The judgment outlined a few guiding principles for courts to consider while scrutinising the proportionality of actions taken by the House against its member(s). The Court clarified that these parameters are not exhaustive, as considerations will inevitably vary from case to case. An indicative list of such parameters includes:

(a) Degree of obstruction caused by the member in the proceedings of the House;

(b) Whether the behaviour of the member has brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire House;

(c) The previous conduct of the erring member;

(d) The subsequent conduct of the erring member, such as expressing remorse, cooperation with the institutional scrutiny mechanism;

(e) Availability of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the delinquent member;

(f) Whether crude expressions uttered are deliberate and motivated or a mere outcome of language largely influenced by the local dialect;

(g) Whether the measure adopted is suitable for furthering the desired purpose; and

(h) Balancing the interest of society, particularly the electorates, with those of the erring members.

"We are of the view that a scrutiny of the punishment given to the members by the House on the abovementioned framework will ensure that the legislative actions are justified, necessary, and balanced, protecting both the integrity of the legislative body and the rights of its members, as well as the larger societal objective. It is also imperative that such legislative action remains mindful of the fundamental principle that the purpose of imposing punishment is not to serve as a tool for retribution but rather to uphold and enforce discipline within the House. The primary objective should be to maintain decorum and foster an environment of constructive debate and deliberation. Any punitive measure must be proportionate and guided by considerations of fairness, reasonableness, and due process, ensuring that it does not unduly stifle democratic participation or undermine the representative nature of the institution," the judgment stated.

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