The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the one-year suspension of 12 BJP MLAs. from the Maharashtra Assembly observing that the decision to suspend him for one year was ‘unconstitutional, basically illegal and irrational’. In its 90-page order, the court said that the 12 MLAs are entitled to all consequential benefits of being members of the Assembly on and after the end of the session in July 2021.
What was the petition in the Supreme Court?
Soon after the assembly met for the two-day monsoon session on July 5, 2021, there was an uproar as Leader of the Opposition Devendra Fadnavis (BJP) objected to an attempt by state minister Chhagan Bhujbal (NCP) to move a resolution demanding that the Center release data on Other Backward Classes (OBCs), so that seats in local bodies in Maharashtra are reserved for them . In protest, several BJP MLAs entered the well, snatched the mace and uprooted the mike. Shiv Sena MLA Bhaskar Jadhav, who was in the chair, adjourned the House for 10 minutes after which some BJP MLAs allegedly entered his chamber and threatened, abused and abused him.
There has been no speaker in the Maharashtra Sadan since the resignation of Congress’ Nana Patole in February 2021, and Jadhav was one of the four presiding officers nominated by caretaker Speaker Narhari Jirwal the previous day. Data on OBC population is a political hot button, and the Center has told the Supreme Court that data on OBCs collected during the 2011 Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) is incorrect and unusable.
Maharashtra Parliamentary Affairs Minister Anil Parab later sent 12 BJP MLAs – Sanjay Kute, Ashish Shelar, Abhimanyu Pawar, Girish Mahajan, Atul Bhatkalkar, Parag Alwani, Harish Pimple, Yogesh Sagar, Jaykumar Rawal, Narayan Kuche, Ram Satpute and Bunty. Sent. motion to suspend. Bhangadiya – for a year.
The legislators had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court last year against the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and the state of Maharashtra seeking quashing of the suspension.
What was the argument of both the sides?
On behalf of the 12 BJP MLAs, it was submitted that their suspension was “extremely arbitrary and disproportionate”. The challenge was based mainly on the denial of principles of natural justice and violation of due process. He said he was not given an opportunity to present his case and the suspension violated his fundamental right to equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution. He also said that he was not given access to video of the proceedings of the House, and it was not clear how he was identified among the large crowd that had gathered in the chamber.
The legislators have also argued that under Rule 53 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, the power to suspend can be exercised only by the Speaker, and cannot vote in motion in this case. He was done.
Rule 53 states that “the Speaker may direct any member who refuses to comply with his decision, or whose conduct, in his opinion, is wholly disorderly, to withdraw from the Assembly forthwith”. . The member has to “absent himself during the remainder of the day”.
The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and the state, who were named as respondents in the case, submitted that the action was taken due to “disciplinary and indecent behavior” of the MLAs. It was argued that the House had acted within its legislative competence, and that under Article 212, the courts were not empowered to inquire into the proceedings of the legislature. Article 212(1) states that “the validity of any proceeding in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure”.
The state had also said that a seat does not automatically become vacant if a member does not appear in the House for 60 days, but becomes vacant only when declared by the House. It was submitted that the House is not bound to declare such seat vacant.
What did the court say about the suspension of the members after the ongoing session?
The court agreed with the legislators that the suspension would have to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 53. It said suspension of a member should be given priority as a short-term or temporary, disciplinary measure to restore order in the Assembly. , Anything more than this would amount to irrational suspension, the court said. It added that Rule 53 provides for withdrawal of a member for the remainder of the session only for the remainder of the day or in case of repeated misconduct in the same session.
The court said that under this rule, a member can be removed only in case the conduct of a member is ‘very disorderly’. It relied on the definition of the two words and held that conduct should be considered in a graded objective manner. It is not a punishment like expulsion, but a direction to ensure that the business of the House runs smoothly without any disturbance. It termed a one-year suspension worse than expulsion or disqualification or resignation, so far as the rights of the constituency represented in the house are concerned.
It also said that the suspension after the ongoing session is a violation of basic democratic values as it would mean that the constituency the member represents in the House would not be represented. He said that this will also have an impact on the democratic system. It said a coalition government with a low majority can use such suspension to manipulate the strength of the opposition party and the opposition can effectively engage in discussion/debate in the House for fear of prolonged suspension of its members. Maybe. will not be able to participate.
It also considered whether the legislature was completely exempted from judicial review in cases of irregularities of procedure. It ruled that the procedures are open to judicial review on grounds of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal, irrational or arbitrary.
Can members be suspended after the rest of the session?
The bench referred to Article 190(4) of the Constitution, which states, “If a member of the House of the Legislature of a State remains absent from all its sittings for a period of sixty days without the leave of the House, the House shall May declare your seat vacant.”
Under section 151 (a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, “by-election to fill any vacancy … [in the House] shall be held within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy”. It means that no constituency can remain without a representative for more than six months, except with the exceptions specified under this section. Anything more would be an irrational suspension that would deprive the constituency of representation in the House.
The court observed that exceeding the time limit prescribed as per rules for withdrawal of members is an important matter. It said it raises the question as to what is the purpose of withdrawing a member from the House for consecutive sessions within a period of one year. It further said that if the conduct of a member is gross, which requires his removal from the Assembly for a long time, the House can invoke its inherent power to remove.
Like Rule 53 in Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, are there similar rules for Parliament and other State Legislatures?
Rules 373, 374, and 374A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha provide for withdrawal of a member whose conduct is “highly disorderly”, and who abuses the rules of the House or willfully obstructs his business . There is a provision to suspend him. ,
The maximum suspension as per these rules is for “five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less”.
News bulletin , Click to get the best interpreters of the day delivered to your inbox
The maximum suspension for Rajya Sabha under rules 255 and 256 also does not exceed the rest of the session. The suspension of several recent members has not continued even after the session.
Similar rules also apply for state legislatures and councils that allow the maximum suspension not to exceed the rest of the session.