Supreme Court: In a civil writ petition challenging the Report of the Ethics Committee of the Bihar Legislative Council (‘BLC’) which recommended Rashtriya Janata Dal’s (‘RJD’) Sunil Kumar Singh’s expulsion as a Member of the Legislative Council (‘MLC’), the Division Bench of Surya Kant* and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. allowed the petition and set aside the impugned report and notification expelling Singh, considering that the punishment meted out to him was highly excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct committed by him. The Bench directed him to be reinstated as a member of the BLC with immediate effect. However, he shall not be entitled to claim any remuneration or other monetary benefits for the period of his disbandment.
However, the Court clarified that if he indulges further in such misconduct upon his reinstatement, the Ethics Committee or Chairperson of the BLC can take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
The Court also reiterated that the power which vests in this Court to scrutinise the proportionality of punishment imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by the House,
Factual Matrix
Singh is a member of the political party RJD. He was elected as a member of the BLC on 29-06-2020 for six years. Singh was also nominated as the Chief Whip by the RJD in the BLC. He alleged of unparliamentary conduct, including the use of derogatory expressions in his capacity as an MLC within the House of the BLC. On 13-02-2024, as soon as the Governor’s address was completed and during the motion of thanks, Singh and another MLC, Md. Sohaib hurled indecent slogans against the Chief Minister. They mocked him as “Paltu Ram”, imitated his body language, and sarcastically remarked that “the man who has not contested a single Mukhiya election till date is the Chief Minister of Bihar”. Singh also alluded to the Chief Minister as an ‘expert in manipulations’ and insinuated that he was “just like a snake sheds its skin every year”.
This conduct prompted the initiation of proceedings against him by the Ethics Committee. The allegations were found to be substantiated, leading the Ethics Committee to recommend his expulsion from the BLC. Subsequently, a resolution to that effect was passed by a majority of the members of BLC, formalising the decision to expel and relieve him.
Analysis
Whether the petition was maintainable given Article 212 (1) of the Constitution of India and whether the proceedings of the Ethics Committee were amenable to judicial review?
Article 212 (1) bars any enquiry regarding any proceeding in the Legislature on the grounds of alleged irregularity of procedure. The Court dismissed the respondents’ contentions that the report of the Ethics Committee was shielded by the immunity under Article 212(1). The Court reiterated that there is no absolute bar on calling into question the decisions taken by the Legislature. The Court stated that the protection under Article 212(1) operates only with respect to the ‘Proceedings in the Legislature’ on the grounds of ‘Procedural Irregularities’. It was not the intent of the lawmakers to circumscribe Constitutional Courts unconditionally from scrutinising the validity of the actions of the Legislature, which may encroach upon the fundamental rights of the members and/or citizens.
‘Proceedings in the Legislature’ comprise the formal steps, debates, and motions undertaken to facilitate deliberations within the House. Article 212(1) of the Constitution provides immunity for the manner of such proceedings, and hence, Constitutional Courts would exercise restraint when such proceedings are called into question on the grounds of procedural irregularity.
On the other hand, the Court explained that a ‘Legislative Decision’, on the other hand, is the culmination of the legislative procedure—the formal expression of the will of the House on a given matter. While Proceedings of the Legislature provide the framework within which members exercise their deliberative functions, the Legislative Decision is the authoritative determination that follows such deliberation. The decisions of the Legislature, though emanating from a coordinate branch of Government, are not immune from scrutiny by Constitutional Courts. Judicial review of legislative decisions is not an encroachment upon legislative dominion but a necessary safeguard to uphold constitutional supremacy.
Applying the principle- ‘expression unius est exclusion alterius’, the Court held that the prohibition under Article 212(1) operates only with respect to the scrutiny of ‘proceedings in the legislature’ on the touchstone of irregularity of procedure’. It does not oust the power of judicial review of the decisions of the Legislature, whether Legislative or Administrative, on the grounds of illegality or unconstitutionality.
In the matter at hand, the Court noted that the Ethics Committee in the discharge of its administrative functions recommended the explusion under the impugned report. These functions have been assigned in the Rules framed by the State Legislature under Article 208 of the Constitution. The Rules so enacted govern the internal functioning, discipline of the House, and the procedure by which the House regulates its affairs. However, such administrative actions, even though referable to the Rules formulated under Article 208 of the Constitution, do not constitute the legislative functions of the House.
Reiterating that administrative actions, even when undertaken by legislative bodies or their committees, are subject to judicial review where they affect the rights and interests of individuals, the Court held that the scrutiny in the instant petition pertained to the recommendation of the Ethics Committee subsequently ratified by the majority of the House and the action of the Committee was not immune from judicial review under the pretext of legislative privilege.
Can the Courts examine the proportionality of punishment imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by the House?
The Doctrine of Proportionality: A dynamic precept
The ‘doctrine of proportionality’ signifies that any action should be steeped in reason or logic. In the context of Indian jurisprudence, the Court said that the doctrine is guided by the principle of selecting the most appropriate and least restrictive measures to achieve the intended objective. The Court’s role is limited to ensuring a proper balance between the adverse effects of an action or penalty on an individual’s rights, liberties, or interests and the purpose it seeks to serve.
The Court added that while dealing with the decision of expulsion of a legal or public representative, it must be borne in mind that, inflicting punishment beyond the necessary period may suffer from the vice of being irrational and arbitrariness and such action then becomes prone to challenge on the grounds of being illegal and unconstitutional.
Scrutinising the ‘Action’ of the House – The role of Constitutional Courts
The Court stated that Constitutional Courts have a crucial role in ensuring that the actions imposing punishments on members are proportionate and just. The Court referred to Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker of Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184, wherein, the Court recognised the power of the Legislature to expel a member. However, it was laced with caution that, the “expulsion of a member is a grave measure and normally, it should not be taken”.
“Imposing a disproportionate punishment not only undermines democratic values by depriving the member from participating in the proceedings of the House but also affects the electorates of the constituency who remain unrepresented. The removal of a member from the House therefore is a significant issue for both the member and the constituency they represent. The democratic process relies on the active participation of all members, and even brief absences can impede a member’s ability to contribute to critical legislative discussions and decisions. While representation of the constituency is not the sole factor in determining the punishment to be imposed on a member, it nonetheless remains an important aspect that merits due consideration.”
The Court added that, if the punishment inflicted upon the member appears to be prima facie harsh and disproportionate, Constitutional Courts owe a duty to undo such gross injustice and review the proportionality of such disqualifications or expulsions.
However, the Court cautioned that this responsibility involves a delicate balance where Courts must act decisively to strike down excessively harsh actions that threaten the democratic fabric while simultaneously exercising restraint to avoid encroaching upon the legislative domain. The Court reiterated that-
“Courts must reflect a certain degree of deference to the legislative will and wisdom, intervening only when the action prescribed is so disproportionate that it shocks the intrinsic sense of justice.”
Conclusively, the Court held that there is no absolute bar on the Constitutional Courts to examine the proportionality of the punishment imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by the House. By focusing on the proportionality of punishment, Courts must ensure that justice aligns with constitutional values and societal norms, thereby upholding the integrity of the democratic process.
As to what constitutes ‘disproportionate measure’, the Court stated that it is inherently complex and context-dependent. In this context, the Court said that a one-size-fits-all definition is impractical while adjudicating proportionality and the Courts must exercise their discretion prudently and judiciously.
“A scrutiny of the punishment given to the members by the House on the abovementioned framework will ensure that the legislative actions are justified, necessary, and balanced, protecting both the integrity of the legislative body and the rights of its members, as well as the larger societal objective.”
Guiding principles for Courts to consider while scrutinising the proportionality of actions taken by the House against its members:
-
Degree of obstruction caused by the member in the proceedings of the House.
-
Whether the behaviour of the member has brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire House.
-
The previous conduct of the erring member.
-
The subsequent conduct of the erring member, such as expressing remorse, cooperation with the institutional scrutiny mechanism.
-
Availability of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the delinquent member.
-
Whether crude expressions uttered are deliberate and motivated or a mere outcome of language largely influenced by the local dialect.
-
Whether the measure adopted is suitable for furthering the desired purpose.
-
Balancing the interest of society, particularly the electorates, with those of the erring members.
Was Singh’s expulsion proportionate to the offence alleged against him?
“There is no place for aggression and indecency in the proceedings of the Parliament or the Legislature. Members are expected to show complete respect and deference.”
The Court noted that Singh sought exemption from appearing before the Ethics Committee on some pretext or another. Such behaviour was nothing but a brazen attempt to circumvent the authority of the Ethics Committee. The Court also pointed out that when he finally appeared before the Ethics Committee, instead of answering the charges against him, he deemed it appropriate to question the authenticity and legitimacy of the Ethics Committee itself.
However, keeping in mind that the ramifications of the decision against Singh extend beyond and will inevitably have a direct and significant impact on a vast number of stakeholders, particularly the constituents who have reposed their faith in him as their representative. The Court stated that voices, aspirations, and democratic rights cannot be disregarded, and it is in furtherance of these principles that the needs and interests of the electorate must take precedence in any decision that affects their representation in a democratic forum.
The Court perused Rule 10, Chapter 36 of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, which provides for the penalties that the Ethics Committee may recommend. If the Committee finds a member violating the code/rules, it may recommend: (a) Censure, (b) Reprimand, (c) Suspension from the House for a specified period; and (d) any other punishment as deemed fit.
His from the House not only raised concerns about the violation of fundamental rights but also impacts the legal rights of his constituents.
Reiterating that principle of proportionality is a cornerstone of the Indian judicial system, and it mandates that the severity of the punishment must correspond to the gravity of the offence, the Court held that the punishment meted out to him was excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the offence he committed.
Further, the Court said that when a Court concludes that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it does not generally substitute its assessment of the appropriate penalty. Instead, the established judicial approach is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration. However, the Court also underscored that this Court is not devoid of the power to intervene in exceptional circumstances. In order to curtail perpetuating illegality, abridge prolonged litigation, prevent unnecessary hardship to the parties involved and do complete justice, the Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, is vested with the authority to substitute the punishment where the facts and circumstances so warrant.
Exercising its discretion squarely in the interests of proportionality and fairness and noting that Singh had already undergone almost seven months of expulsion, missed the 208th Session of the BLC held and since his term is expiring in the year 2026, he is left with a short duration, the Court held that the expulsion period already undergone by him be deemed to be considered as a period of his suspension; and that it constituted sufficient punishment for the misconduct displayed by him. Accordingly, the impugned Report of the Ethics Committee and the subsequent Notification notifying his expulsion be modified to that extent. The Court directed to reinstate him as member of the BLC with immediate effect.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
