2022 (1) TMI 1490 - SC - Indian Laws

Legislative Assembly cannot suspend members beyond current session without following proper legal procedures under Article 208 and 21

The SC held that the Legislative Assembly's resolution suspending members beyond the remainder of the ongoing Session without following the prescribed ... Maintainability of the challenge in respect of the stated resolution adopted by the Legislative Assembly - suspension of members for a period of one year beyond the remainder of the ongoing Session without following the procedure prescribed - HELD THAT:- The scope of interference by the Court has been well delineated in successive decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court. This Court has consistently expounded that the judicial scrutiny regarding exercise of legislative privileges (including power to punish for contempt of the House) is constricted and cannot be stricto sensu on the touchstone of judicial review as generally understood in other situations. In that, there is complete immunity from judicial review in matters of irregularity of procedure. It is wellsettled that the rules so framed can be altered by the House at any time. Until the rules are altered, however, the House is ordinarily guided by the procedure prescribed in the rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution. At the same time, proceedings inside the Legislature cannot be called into question on the ground that the same have not been carried on in accordance with the rules of business as restated in Kihota Hollohon supra at Footnote No. 25 (para 42). It is, however, enough for the present to observe that the rules framed under Article 208 acquire the status of procedure established by law for the purpose of Article 21 of the Constitution as noticed in M.S.M. Sharma [1958 (12) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT]. Viewed thus, even though the Legislature has the prerogative to deviate from the rules including to alter the rules; until then, and even otherwise, it is expected to adhere to the “express substantive stipulation” (which is not mere procedure) in the rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution and the principle underlying therein, being procedure established by law. In the present case, the Chairman entertained the subject motion and called upon the House to vote thereon, which had the effect of giving tacit consent if not explicit concurrence to the same. In that sense, it is not a case of resolution passed by the House (to suspend its members) as being without jurisdiction. It is a different matter that if the Speaker/Chairman was to do so, it could be only under Rule 53 in a graded manner for the remainder of the day and for repeat misconduct in the same Session — for the remainder of the Session. That would be a logical and rational approach consistent with the constitutional tenets. Thus, only a graded approach is the essence of a rational and logical approach; and only such action of the Legislature which is necessary for orderly conduct of its scheduled business of the ongoing Session can be regarded as rational approach. Suspension beyond the Session would be bordering on punishing not only the member concerned, but also inevitably impact the legitimate rights of the constituency from where the member had been elected. In the present case, the House has already adopted the Rules for conduct of its business and Rule 53 of the Rules expressly provides for the mechanism regarding suspension of its member. Indubitably, the source of powers and privileges of Legislatures in India is derived from Article 105(3) in case of Parliament and Article 194(3) concerning the State Legislature. In absence of a law to define such powers and privileges, as of now, it can only exercise those powers as existed in the House of Commons of the Parliament of United Kingdom at the commencement of the Constitution. There are no hesitation in concluding that the impugned resolution suffers from the vice of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal and irrational to the extent of period of suspension beyond the remainder of the concerned (ongoing) Session. Further, it is not a case of mere procedural irregularity committed by the Legislature within the meaning of Article 212(1) of the Constitution - there are no hesitation in allowing these writ petitions and to declare that the impugned resolution directing suspension of the petitioners beyond the period of the remainder of the concerned Monsoon Session held in July 2021 is non est in the eyes of law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational. The impugned resolution is, thus, declared to be ineffective in law, insofar as the period beyond the remainder of the stated Session in which the resolution came to be passed. The petitioners are entitled for all consequential benefits of being members of the Legislative Assembly, on and after the expiry of the period of the remainder of the concerned Session in July 2021. The writ petitions are allowed. ISSUES: Whether the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly had jurisdiction to pass a resolution suspending members for a period of one year beyond the remainder of the ongoing Session without following the procedure prescribed under its Rules.Whether the suspension imposed without opportunity of hearing and without adherence to principles of natural justice violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.Whether the Rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution constitute 'procedure established by law' for the purpose of Article 21 and are binding on the House.Whether the power to suspend members for 'grossly disorderly' conduct is limited to the remainder of the day or the remainder of the Session under Rule 53 of the Rules and inherent powers of the House can extend beyond that.Whether the suspension of members beyond the remainder of the Session is a punitive measure and if so, whether it is constitutionally permissible.Whether judicial review of the resolution passed by the House is permissible in light of Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution and the principles laid down in Raja Ram Pal and other precedents.Whether suspension for a period exceeding the remainder of the Session results in deprivation of the constituency's right to representation and violates democratic values.Whether the nominated Chairman under Rule 8 had authority to preside over the proceedings and exercise powers under Rule 53 given the vacancy of the Speaker's office and presence of the Deputy Speaker. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The resolution suspending members for one year beyond the remainder of the ongoing Session is declared 'non est in the eyes of law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational' as it exceeds the limits of the inherent and rule-based powers of the House.The suspension passed without giving the members an opportunity of hearing and without adherence to principles of natural justice violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.The Rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution constitute 'procedure established by law' for the purpose of Article 21 and must be ordinarily followed by the House; they are not mere byelaws and are binding unless duly altered by the House.The power to suspend members for 'grossly disorderly' conduct under Rule 53 is limited to a graded approach-withdrawal for the remainder of the day on first occasion and for the remainder of the Session on repeated misconduct-and inherent powers cannot extend suspension beyond the Session.Suspension beyond the remainder of the Session is a punitive and excessive measure, worse than expulsion, and is therefore unconstitutional and illegal.Judicial review of legislative privileges is limited but permissible where there is gross illegality, unconstitutionality, irrationality, mala fide, or violation of fundamental rights; mere procedural irregularities are immune from judicial scrutiny.Suspension beyond the remainder of the Session results in undue deprivation of the constituency's right to representation, impacting democratic values and the functioning of the Assembly.The nominated Chairman under Rule 8 lacked authority to exercise powers under Rule 53 in presence of the Deputy Speaker and vacancy of the Speaker's office, rendering the resolution invalid for want of jurisdiction. RATIONALE: The Court applied the constitutional framework including Articles 14, 21, 105, 108, 180, 194, 208, 212, and 122, and the Rules of Procedure of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly framed under Article 208.It relied on the principles laid down by Constitution Benches in Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon'ble Speaker and Amarinder Singh vs. Special Committee, emphasizing limited judicial review of legislative privileges but upholding fundamental rights and constitutional mandates.The Court held that the Rules framed under Article 208 constitute 'procedure established by law' under Article 21, and adherence to such procedure is mandatory unless formally altered by the House.The Court interpreted Rule 53 as prescribing a graded, rational, and objective standard for suspension limited to the remainder of the day or Session, consistent with the doctrine of necessity and self-protection of legislative functioning.It drew upon authoritative treatises such as Sir Thomas Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice and decisions of the Privy Council (Barton v. Taylor and Harnett v. Crick) to conclude that suspension beyond the Session is excessive and punitive, not justified by inherent powers.The Court emphasized that suspension beyond the Session deprives the constituency of representation and is thus contrary to democratic principles and constitutional provisions including Article 190(4) and Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.It distinguished between procedural irregularities immune from judicial review and substantive illegality or unconstitutionality warranting interference, holding the impugned resolution falls in the latter category.The Court noted the absence of authority of the nominated Chairman to exercise suspension powers under Rule 53 in presence of the Deputy Speaker, rendering the resolution invalid for lack of jurisdiction.The Court refrained from delving into other contentions as the principal issue of suspension period sufficed to dispose of the petitions.