TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Legislative Assembly cannot suspend members beyond current session without following proper legal procedures under Article 208 and 21</h1> <h3>ASHISH SHELAR & ORS. Versus THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ANR.</h3> ASHISH SHELAR & ORS. Versus THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ANR. - 2022 INSC 116 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
