Limits of power: On Maharashtra MLAs suspension case

Syllabus: General Studies Paper 2

Context

• The Supreme Court has recently declared the suspension of 12 BJP legislators for one year by the Maharashtra Assembly for disorderly conduct, as grossly illegal and irrational.
• In doing so, the Supreme Court has set the limits of the legislature’s power to deal with disorderly conduct in the House.
• ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Brushing aside objections that the judiciary should not examine the validity of the proceedings of the House, a three-judge Bench, comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, ruled that the suspension beyond the term of the particular session in which it was imposed was a nullity in the eyes of the law.

More about the incident

• July 2021: when the Maharashtra government introduced a resolution seeking empirical data on OBCs from the Union government there was ruckus in the house. The House was adjourned briefly for a few times before the resolution was passed, as BJP members rushed to the well of the House and were accused of damaging the presiding officer’s microphone and grabbing the mace.
• Suspension: Later the Chair, during the incidents, said that when he was in the Deputy Speaker’s chamber, some members rushed inside and abused him. A resolution moved by the Parliamentary Affairs Minister was subsequently adopted by the House suspending 12 MLAs. They were barred from entering the legislative premises for 12 months.
• The members challenged their suspension in the Supreme Court.

Maharashtra government’s stand on suspension

• There is no limitation on the power of the legislature to punish for breach of privilege or disorderly conduct in the course of its proceedings.
• No judicial review of the manner in which it is exercised.
• Under Rule 53 of the Maharashtra Assembly Rules, the Speaker could direct a Member to withdraw from the Assembly for disorderly conduct for the day, or the remainder of the Session.
• However, there is no such limitation when the whole House decides to impose suspension. In this context, counsel contended that when the power to expel a member is available, the power to suspend, being a lesser punishment, is also available to the House at all times.

Suspension beyond 60 days:

• The Bench had raised a question as to how any suspension can go beyond 60 days. The Article 190(4) of the Constitution, allows declare a seat vacant if a member is absent for 60 days.
• The State government’s argued that it is the House that declares the seat vacant, and it is not an automatic consequence of a member’s absence for 60 days on which the House met.
• The Government also pointed out that in Raja Ram Pal (2007) case, the Supreme Court had upheld the expulsion of 12 MP’s in the cash-for-questions scandal. When expulsion, the greater punishment was allowed, suspension, being a lesser penalty, cannot be questioned.

Court’s Decision-

• Against constitutional mandate In the light of Article 190(4) of the Constitution, which says the House could declare a seat vacant if a member is absent for 60 days.
• Rule 53 showed a ‘graded approach’ to the issue of disorderly behaviour, an initial suspension for a day, and then for the remainder of the session, but nothing beyond it.
• The power to be exercised only for the protection of the proceedings. However, in the present case, there was no separate provision for the House to impose a lengthy suspension for what happens in private chamber.
• Once the length of the suspension went beyond the session, it ceased to be a disciplinary measure, but partook the character of a punitive action.
• Citing Privy Council cases and Indian precedents, the Bench said anything that went beyond the session was irrational and grossly illegal.
• Representation of the People Act, 1951, says that any vacancy in the House has to be filled up through a by-election within six months of its occurrence.
• Deprivation of Representation of the constituency: It ruled that a one-year suspension meant that the constituency concerned would go without representation in the Assembly for a whole year.
• Any absence beyond 6-month is led by mandatory filling of seat: The suspension seemed to have worse consequences than outright expulsion from the legislature, as a by-election will be held within six months; whereas, a one-year suspension does not entail mandatory filling up of the vacancy.

Conclusion

• The court has reiterated the principle that even though the judicature will not interfere with the functioning of the legislature, a coordinate body, it is not deprived of the power of judicial review if there is a violation of the Constitution.
• Even though there were no prescribed limits to the privileges of the House, there is no doubt that these are subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
• A lengthy suspension, apart from the deprivation of representation for the constituents, may also be detrimental to democracy, as it could be used to manipulate numbers in the legislature and deny the opposition the opportunity to participate effectively in debates.

The Hindu link

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/limits-of-power-the-hindu-editorial-on-maharashtra-mlas-suspension-case/article38350726.ece

Question- Speaker’s power in suspension of members of the house cannot be discretionary and beyond judicial review. Explain the statement citing the recent Supreme court ruling regarding suspension of Maharashtra MLAs.