'Danger To Democracy' : Supreme Court Questions Rationality Of Maharashtra Assembly Suspending 12 BJP MLAs Beyond A Session

The Supreme Court on Tuesday continued hearing of writ petitions filed by 12 BJP MLAs challenging the resolution passed by the Maharashtra Assembly on July 5, 2021 to suspend them for a period of 1 year for alleged misconduct in the house.A bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar posed questions to Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra, regarding the rationality of suspension extending beyond the period of the session."When you say that action has to be rational, there should be some purpose of suspension and the purpose is with regards to the session. It should not travel beyond that session. Anything other than this would be irrational. The real issue is about the rationality of the decision & the same should be for some purpose. There should be some overwhelming reason. Your decision of 1 year is irrational because of the deprivation of the constituency being unrepresented for more than 6 months. We are talking about the spirit of Parliamentary law now. It is the interpretation of the Constitution in the manner it ought to be dealt," remarked Justice Khanwilkar."Another thing, the Election Commission also got the role. Where a vacancy is there, elections have to be conducted. In case of suspension, there will not be an election but if a person is expelled then election will be conducted. Another is danger to the democracy. Suppose there is a slender lead of the majority, and 15/20 people are suspended, what would be the fate of democracy?" Justice CT Ravikumar added."There has to be some rational & constitutional principle that houses meet in sessions. If a house is elected, what is the concept of meeting in sessions only? A particular session he may be suspended but beyond that time the rationality question comes," Justice Dinesh Maheshwari remarked.Senior Advocate Sundaram raised arguments regarding the limited scope for judicial review over the business within the assembly.On January 11, 2022, the bench had expressed an inclination to interfere with the resolution passed on July 5, 2021, by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly to suspend 12 BJP MLAs for one year for alleged misbehaviour, as the term of suspension was beyond the permissible limits. The bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar observed that the suspension for one year was "worse than expulsion" as the constituency is remaining unrepresented. If there is expulsion, there is a mechanism to fill up the vacancy. The suspension for one year will amount to a punishment on the constituency, the bench observed.The bench while referring to Article 190(4) of the Constitution had pointed out that as per the relevant rules, the Assembly had no power to suspend a member beyond 60 days. It had also said that as per Section 151 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 a constituency cannot go unrepresented for a period beyond 6 months. Saying so, the bench refused to accept the argument of Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram for the State of Maharashtra that the Court cannot examine the quantum of punishment imposed by a legislative assembly. Pursuant to the bench expressing these views, Senior Counsel on January 11, 2022 had sought time to take instructions from the State.Power Of Legislature To Suspend Member Is Available & Correctness Of Exercise Of That Power Would Not Be Open To Judicial Review; When MLA Is Suspended Constituency Has Member & He Continues To Remain Member But Without Any Voice: Senior Advocate C Aryama SundaramAppearing for State of Maharashtra, Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram commenced his argument by submitting that power of Legislature to punish for privilege etc in proceedings before itself did not have any limitation."If the Legislature had to make rules which could provide beyond this period, would it not be hit by the act made by the Parliament or the Constitution?" asked Justice AM Khanwilkar, the presiding judge of the bench. Justice Khanwilkar while referring to the Top Court's judgement in Pandit M. S. M. Sharma vs Shri Sri Krishna Sinha & Others remarked that rules framed can be regarded as procedure established by law under Art 21 and thus they are enforceable per se."Despite these rules, the House can deviate from the rules. Deviation is permissible but these rules are benchmark, guide. Deviation can be there of the procedure but not of substantive matters. Constitution Bench has said that it is not untrammeled power of the legislature & they are bound by the law laid down by the Parliament and the Constitution," Justice Khanwilkar further remarked.Responding to the remarks made by the bench, Senior Counsel submitted that substantive right could have been if the Speaker had acted under Rule 53 but when the legislative assembly acted, there was no rule which either created or removed any such power."If you can expel, the suspension for 1 year is less. The power of expulsion is a much wider punishment. To expel someone from the house. People...

'Danger To Democracy' : Supreme Court Questions Rationality Of Maharashtra Assembly Suspending 12 BJP MLAs Beyond A Session

Shruti Kakkar

Suspension Of MLAs Beyond A Sessions Raises Questions Of Rationality, Supreme Court Says In Maharashtra MLAs Case Hearing

Tags