New Delhi: The suspension of an opposition party member from Parliament has very serious repercussions on the rights of people to be represented and the exclusion of such a voice is a cause of concern, the Supreme Court (SC) observed Monday.
A bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud was hearing a petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP’s) Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha challenging his “indefinite suspension” from the House.
Chadha was suspended during the monsoon session this year, pending an inquiry before the Committee of Privileges, after he had moved a motion to refer the Delhi Services Bill to a select committee.
In the motion, Chadha had named certain MPs as proposed committee members. It was alleged that the names of these MPs were mentioned in the motion without their consent. These members were from parties who had supported the Bill.
On 16 October, the SC bench issued notice to the Rajya Sabha secretariat and the Attorney General (AG) in the matter.
During the hearing Monday, the bench made critical observations, though oral, on Chadha’s suspension. This came after Chadha’s counsel, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, recalled four instances of suspension that have happened pending an inquiry. One such was of Sanjay Singh, who too belongs to the AAP.
“In the House, the opposition members wanted to discuss the North-East issue. The majority party thinks it must not be. In this tussle, Sanjay Singh, of my party, was suspended, pending an inquiry,” Dwivedi said.
Talking about Chadha’s case, the bench asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani whether the AAP leader’s action “really reduced the dignity of the House”.
“A member who should have verified the inclusion of members in his committee does not do so. He says this (inclusion of names in the motion) is like a birthday invitation card. What he obviously meant was that if you want to come, you come. Does this cause breach of privilege?” the bench wondered.
The CJI further observed: “It is about representation of people. We must be very careful about not excluding those voices from Parliament. As a constitutional court, this is a serious cause of concern. The indefinite suspension is a cause of concern.”
He enquired from the Attorney General whether Chadha’s alleged act of indiscipline was “worse than disruption of proceedings”.
“Is this really on a higher level? A person who disrupts the House is excluded for the rest of the session. In this case alleged infraction is that he did not verify,” the CJI remarked, adding the punishment has to be proportionate to the alleged act. “Some proportionality is now an invested part of our jurisprudence,” the bench said.
The CJI also made significant observations regarding the rules of the Rajya Sabha under which Chadha was suspended and noted that the same did not allow suspension of a member beyond the session. Chadha, the CJI noted, had been suspended indefinitely.
When Venkataramani contended that Chadha should have taken consent from the MPs he named in his motion, the CJI told him that nobody “can be compelled to become a member of the select committee”, meaning thereby that their ascent or willingness to join the committee could have been taken later.
The CJI opined that Chadha may not have “ascertained willingness” (before proposing names) because he had proposed a multi-party committee. Moreover, the court felt that the rules under which Chadha was suspended did not apply in the present case.
“We are all subordinate to the Constitution, whether we are in court or on the streets,” the bench further observed, as it asked Chadha’s counsel to formulate his submissions.
The court indicated it would take up the matter for further hearing on 3 November.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Over 7 lakh watch as SC starts live-streaming hearings. ‘Real’ Sena tussle rakes in most views