Supreme Court Reserves Orders On RJD MLC's Plea Challenging Expulsion From Bihar Legislative Council Over Comment On Nitish Kumar

The Supreme Court today reserved orders on RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh's plea challenging his expulsion from Bihar Legislative Council for allegedly using defamatory words against State's Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.

The matter was before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which indicated that balancing of some legal provisions involved in the case was required and it will do the same.

As arguments were previously concluded on behalf of Singh, today, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar led arguments for Bihar Legislative Council. He highlighted that Singh was suspended by the House on an earlier occasion as well on account of his misconduct. As regards Singh's allegation that he was not supplied relevant video-clips/material, Kumar claimed that the material would have been shown to Singh if he attended the meetings, but the same did not happen.

Referring to Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007), the senior counsel further averred that in the said case, a Constitution Bench had said that the court would not go into doctrine of proportionality. Also, it was pointed out that Singh questioned the constitution of the Committee itself and the capacity of the members to hear his case, since he was the Chief Whip of his party and a State Minister.

In addition to the above, Kumar argued that the House had constituted the Committee, which held meetings and gave a Report; as such, it was the will of the House that was being challenged.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, for the candidate likely to fill in the seat left vacant after Singh's expulsion, submitted that once a seat in the House legally becomes vacant, Section 151A of the Representation of People Act kicks in and elections have to be held. "Once an expulsion takes place, a vacancy occurs and then the provisions of Section 151A kick in immediately, requiring the Election Commission to hold those particular elections", she urged. The senior counsel also highlighted that the Committee found Singh to be a habitual offender.

On the other hand, Advocate Ankit Agarwal, for ECI, submitted that the Commission was duty-bound to notify the elections under Section 151A of RP Act and as such, the notification for the bye-elections was issued. On merits, the counsel conceded that ECI had nothing to say.

In response to the above submissions, the bench made it clear that if a person assails his expulsion as legally untenable, and his challenge to the expulsion is allowed, the only consequence would be his re-instatement (ie restoration to the same position). Referring to an earlier case relating to a West Bengal Assembly seat, the bench also called out the ECI for taking different stands in different cases, saying that the same may threaten consistent interpretation of laws and give rise to uncertainty.

"Couple of months back, what was the stand taken in respect of Assembly seat in West Bengal? Because election petition is pending, irrespective of the person having died, we will not hold elections because election petition is pending...whether it's Election Commission or the Courts, we need to be consistent in understanding and interpreting provisions. Otherwise it brings uncertainty and unnecessary speculative kind of aspirations in the minds of people. For example if there is a vacancy, a person might think why should I not contest?" observed Justice Kant.

In rejoinder, Senior Advocates Dr AM Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for petitioner) submitted that Singh was challenging proportionality of the Committee report, not the resolution expelling him. Pointing out that on the subject day, as many as 4 newspapers had published articles using the word "Palturam" for Nitish Kumar, Gopal S further claimed that Singh merely welcomed Nitish Kumar saying "log aapko Palturam bolte hain" (people call you Palturam) and did not invent the word.

When Justice Kant noted that unlike media entities, Singh was a responsible member of the House expected to lead people by example, Gopal S replied that even so, the punishment of permanent expulsion was extreme and wholly unwarranted.

The senior counsel referred to incidents of slippers being flung inside the House at the Speaker and/or mics being thrown around to draw a contrast between the punishments awarded in those cases (few-day suspensions) with the punishment of permanent expulsion conferred on Singh. Taking objection to such incidents, Justice Kant said that the same shall be dealt with an iron hand, as the members are spokespersons of people in the country and ought to act in a responsible/respectful manner.

"These kind of actions must be condemned with an iron hand. This is not the way...they are spokespersons, mouthpiece of 142 crore people...", said the judge.

On the issue of earlier incident of misconduct (in 2022), Gopal S informed the Court that Singh was only suspended for 1 day at the time. Lastly, he drew the Court's attention to the fact that the Committee report (dated June 14) came within 2 days of a meeting (dated June 12) where the Committee Chairman informed Singh that the proceedings were at a preliminary stage and charges against him would be determined after reviewing all material. Questioning the manner in which the Committee conducted its affairs, and imputing malafides, Gopal S underlined that the Report was signed only by 4 out 7 Committee members.

Background

The alleged incident happened during the budget session that took place in February, 2024. The expulsion was made on the basis of a recommendation made by the Ethics Committee of the council. Amongst the accusations against Singh were calling the Chief Minister Palturam and imitating him.

The recommendation of the committee, inter-alia, stated:

“As the Chief Whip of the Opposition, his legislative Responsibility should be more towards the policies, rules and constitutional authority of the House. But he did not follow this in his conduct and behaviour. His efforts to come to the well of the House and raise unrestrained slogans, disrupt the House, disobey the Chair's direction, and insult the Leader of the House by using defamatory and rude words have hurt the dignity of the Upper House.”

“Under clause 10 (d) of Rule 290 of the Bihar Legislative Council's Procedure and Conduct of Business Rules, the Committee recommends unanimously/majority that Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh be relieved from the membership of the Bihar Legislative Council.”

Against the above projection, Singh filed the present writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking to quash the report as illegal and unconstitutional. Further, he sought a direction for not declaring an election pursuant to vacancy arising notification.

In August, 2024, the Supreme Court issued notice on the petition but refused to pass any interim order. Earlier this month, Justice Kant remarked that it is the hallmark of Parliamentary proceedings that one must be respectful, even while dissenting. On January 15, the Court directed that the results of the Bihar Legislative Council Bye-Elections, notified to fill vacancy arising upon expulsion of RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh, be withheld.

Case Details: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH v. BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 530/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order