Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On 12 BJP MLAs Plea Challenging Maharashtra Assembly's Resolution To Suspend Them For 1 Year

The Supreme Court today reserved judgement in batch of petitions by 12 BJP MLA's who were suspended from Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for a period of 1 year challenging the resolution dated July 5, 2021 passed by the Legislative Assembly.The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar while reserving judgement asked the parties to submit their written statements in one week.Earlier the Top Court had issued notice. While issuing notice the further made it clear that the pendency of the petition would not come in the petitioner's way to urge before the House regarding reduction of the tenure.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 misbehavior, as the term of suspension was beyond the permissible limits.A bench comprising headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar had 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 the provisions under section 151 A of the Representation of Poeple's Act, 1951 a constituency cannot go unrepresented for a period beyond 6 months.Yesterday, the Supreme Court had 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.Today Senior Advocate(s) Mahesh Jethmalani, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Bhatnagar made their rejoinder submissions.If Sessions Constitute A Distinct Period Of House Concerned, Rule Of House Is That On Propagation All Bill Lapses & Disciplinary Action Will Also Lapse; No Disciplinary Action Of The House Can Extend Beyond Session Unless It Is Expulsion: Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for MLAs Sanjay Kute and Parag Alavani in the petition filed through Advocate Astha Prasad. Senior Counsel submitted that the action of the house to suspend the members was both illegal and constitutional. Referring to the provisions of Article 105(3) and 190(3) before the 44th Amendment of the Constitution, Senior Counsel submitted that there was a need to see if the House of Commons of the Parliament of UK had the power to impose a period of suspension of 1 years as imposed by Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. In this regard he further submitted that if the power to impose suspension didn't vest with the House of Commons in 1950, the suspension would be unconstitutional and illegal.It was also his submission that the disciplinary action would lapse with the prorogation of the session of the house and that rights of the constituency were interfered by unnecessarily prolonged suspension than expulsion.To substantiate his contention Senior Counsel during the course of hearing referred to the Top Court's judgement in Pandit M. S. M. Sharma vs Shri Sri Krishna Sinha & Others and Baton v. Taylor. He also cited the example of suspension of 12 members of Rajya Sabha in winter session due to their disorderly behaviour who were given an opportunity to tender an apology based on which their suspension could be revoked."The first is on each sitting, end of sitting & anything beyond the sitting would be more. That is the theme of the judgment. Anything beyond the session is excessive. This is even the rule set up in Rule 53," remarked Justice Khanwilkar."Argument on discretion on quantum is not absolute. The longer you extend the sentence for, the closer you go towards perversity. The House of Common did not have power to suspend beyond session. the suspension quantum is graded," submitted Senior Counsel in conclusion.Merely Because Legislative Assembly Exercises Plenary/ Inherent Power, Argument Cannot Be That Power Is Not Subject To Judicial Review: Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul Representing the MLAs Harish Pimple, Jayakumar Rawal and Yogesh Sagar in the petition filed through Advocate Karan Dev Chopra, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul referred to the Top Court's judgment in Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, Special Ref. No. 1 of 1964 D/- 30-9-1964 AIR 1965 SC 745 to submit that inherent power, plenary power or power of contempt of Legislature of the Parliament was subject to Part III of the Constitution of India. For buttressing the submissions made by counsel for the State of Maharashtra, he also referred to the Top Court's judgment in Amrinder Singh vs Spl.Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha and Ors (2010 6 SCC 113)."Merely under the guise of saying that you are exercising plenary ...

Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On 12 BJP MLAs Plea Challenging Maharashtra Assembly's Resolution To Suspend Them For 1 Year

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On 12 BJP MLAs Plea Challenging Maharashtra Assembly's Resolution To Suspend Them For 1 Year

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers