Supreme Court To Examine Legality Of Maharashtra Assembly Resolution Suspending 12 BJP MLAs For One Year

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in writ petitions by 12 BJP MLAs challenging the resolution passed n July 5, 2021, by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly to suspend them for one year for alleged misbehaviour within the House.While issuing notice returnable on January 22, 2022, the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar further made it clear that the pendency of the petition will not be a hindrance to the petitioners requesting the house to reduce their sentence."Needles to observe that the pendency of this petition will not come in the way of the petitioner to urge the house regarding the reduction of tenure and it is a matter which can be taken into account by the house," the bench said in its order.Accordingly, the bench issued notice returnable on January 22 to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and the State of Maharashtra while granting liberty to the petitioners to urge the house to reduce the suspension even during the pendency of the petition.Submissions Of CounselsRight Cannot Be Curtailed In An Arbitrary Fashion By The Speaker: Senior Advocate Mukul RohatgiAppearing for one of the MLAs, Kirtikumar @Banti Bhangdiya, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that there was complete violation of Rule 53 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules ("MLS Rules") which deals with Power to order withdrawal of members and the principles of natural justice.Referring to the said rule as per which, "The Speaker may direct any member who refuses to obey his decision, or whose conduct is, in his opinion, grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Assembly and any member so ordered to withdraw shall do so forthwith and shall absent himself during the remainder of the day's meeting," Senior Counsel submitted that since the session of the Assembly was only for July 5 and July 6, the remainder could only be the next day.It was also Senior Counsels' contention that the resolution passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly curtailed the right of the MLA's to enter the house."This resolution is against the law. I didn't get any chance to present. It is passed in a summary manner," he further added.During the course of his submissions, Senior Counsel further referred to the provisions of privilege starting from Rule 273 of the MLS Rules.The bench at this juncture posed a question as to why didn't the petitioners approach the High Court."I filed the writ 6 months ago and now this matter has been taken up and your lordship has said that 226 is never a bar to approach the Supreme Court," replied Senior Counsel while relying on Raja Ram Pal vs The Hon'Ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors Writ Petition (civil) 1 of 2006.He further submitted that the injury was more grievous since 12 BJP MLA's had been suspended and that they had already served 6 months of suspension."Is there any rule that the speaker can call the order back?" the bench asked at this juncture.Referring to Rule 58 of the MLS Rules which deal with General Powers of Speaker, Senior Counsel said, "I'm not aware of the same but I'm sure somebody who has the power to do also has the power to undo. I have no doubt that he has the power. He is not a creature of statute. He has some constitutional status. There is no doubt that he cannot recall the order. He does not have any quasi judicial status."Issue Raises Serious Questions For Westminster Form Of Democracy; Recognising This Process Has Perils. It Has Far Reaching Consequences: Senior Advocate Harish SalveAppearing for the MLA's, Senior Counsel submitted that the procedure had not been followed."Rule 53 ensures the functioning of the house. 53 is not meant to be a punitive power. You do not punish a member but protect the sanctity of the house by asking the member to withdraw and absent himself," Senior Counsel further submitted in this regard.To further substantiate his contention, Senior Counsel relied on the Top Court's judgement in Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj and Ors. VS Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and Anr reported in (2016) 6 SCC 82.It was also his contention that the issue before the bench today was "sui generis" and in this regard, he submitted that no committee was formed and the resolution was passed by the Minister."Parliament is a creature of tradition and practices and your lordship has defined the remit of it. What is before your lordship today is Sui generis exercise. Recognising this process has perils. It has far reaching consequences," Senior Counsel added.If This Kind Of Inaction Is Allowed It Would Be Destructive Of Parliamentary Democracy: Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan KaulSenior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul appearing for one of the petitioners submitted that there was a breach of Rule 53 of the MLS Rules. While referring to Rule 18 of the MLS Rules that talked about prior notice, Senior Counsel submitted that no notice had been given."No notice, nothing was given in a year. If this kind of inaction is allowed it would be destructive of parliamentary...

Supreme Court To Examine Legality Of Maharashtra Assembly Resolution Suspending 12 BJP MLAs For One Year

Shruti Kakkar

Tags