New Delhi: Quashing the year-long suspension of 12 Maharashtra BJP legislators, the Supreme Court Friday explained that such a suspension — longer than for the remainder of the session in which it was passed — would “not be healthy for democracy as a whole”.
A bench comprising justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar called the suspension order “non est in the eyes of law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational”. The resolution was, therefore, declared “ineffective in law”, to the extent that it applied to the period beyond the remainder of the assembly session in which it was passed.
The MLAs were suspended during the monsoon session in July 2021 for alleged misbehaviour. Consequently, the court said the MLAs were entitled to all the “benefits of Members of Legislative Assembly”, after the expiry of the remaining period of the Monsoon session in July 2021.
The court explained that suspension beyond the remainder of that session “would not only be a grossly irrational measure”, but also lead to these leaders’ constituencies remaining unrepresented in the assembly.
“It would also impact the democratic setup as a whole by permitting the thin majority government (coalition government) of the day to manipulate the numbers of the opposition party in the house in an undemocratic manner,” the court said.
In its 90-page judgment, the court also observed that such a move would “not be healthy for democracy as a whole”, pointing out that “the opposition will not be able to effectively participate in the discussion/debate in the house owing to the constant fear of its members being suspended for a longer period”.
The court asserted that in the absence of any specific provision allowing the legislature to suspend its members beyond the term of the ongoing session, it can only be done “to the extent necessary and for proper exercise of the functions of the house at the relevant point of time. No more”.
What led to suspension
The court was hearing a petition filed by the 12 MLAs — Dr Sanjay Kute, Ashish Shelar, Abhimanyu Pawar, Girish Mahajan, Atul Bhatkhalkar, Harish Pimple, Jaikumar Rawal, Yogesh Sagar, Narayan Kuche, Bunty Bhangdiya, Parag Alvani and Ram Satpute.
The MLAs were suspended after being accused of “misbehaving” with presiding officer Bhaskar Jadhav in the Speaker’s chamber. The suspension motion was moved by state Parliamentary Affairs Minister Anil Parab, and was passed by a voice vote.
According to reports, the conflict began with a political altercation between the ruling Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) leaders and the opposition benches over a resolution seeking the release of empirical data on the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) by the Centre, for providing political reservation to the community in the local bodies in the state. The resolution was passed amid chaos in the assembly, following which the opposition alleged that Jadhav didn’t give them enough time to speak on the issue.
Parab’s motion said the MLAs “misbehaved in the house, addressed the chairman in the Speaker’s chair in unparliamentary language, tried to take the microphone and ‘Rajdand’, despite repeated warnings”. The suspension was proposed “due to the indisciplined and unbecoming behaviour resulting in maligning the dignity of the house,” the motion added.
The legislators were then suspended for one year by the Maharashtra assembly.
Parab had clarified that the 12 MLAs will not be allowed to enter the legislative premises in Mumbai and Nagpur. BJP legislators staged a walkout after the resolution was passed.
Also read: MP ex-woman judge can’t allege sex harassment, resign, get transfer order set aside: HC to SC
‘Politically motivated’
The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court on 22 July last year. According to the judgment, they alleged that the resolution had been passed in “undue haste and is politically motivated”. They pointed out that the resolution was passed within hours, without granting an opportunity to the 12 MLAs to present their case.
The MLAs alleged a violation of Rule 53 of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, which empowers the Speaker to direct any member to “withdraw immediately from the assembly”, if they refuse to obey his decision or indulge in disorderly conduct.
Rule 53 prescribes a graded approach to be taken by the Speaker, for ensuring orderly conduct of business in the house. According to the rule, if it is the first such instance, then the Speaker could order the member’s withdrawal for the remainder of the day. In case of repeated misconduct during the same session, the Speaker could order withdrawal of such members for the remainder of the session.
They had also asserted that they could not have been suspended for a year, and could have been suspended only for the remainder of the session.
‘Irrational suspension’
Ruling in favor of the MLAs, the court explained that the power under Rule 53 has been granted to the Speaker so as to “ensure that the business of the house on the given day or the ongoing session, as the case may be, can be carried on in an orderly manner and without any disruption owing to misconduct of one or more members”.
The power, the court said, “is different from the privilege to inflict punishment on a member”, which may involve suspending the member for a period longer than just the proceedings of the house during the relevant session.
The court then asserted that while the order of suspension in the current case was not passed by the Speaker, but by the house, even then, the house “is expected to adopt the same graded…approach” as under Rule 53.
The court said that suspension may be resorted to, “only for ensuring orderly conduct of the business of the House” and that anything more than that would be “irrational suspension”.
“This is so because the member represents the constituency from where he has been duly elected and longer suspension would entail in deprivation of the constituency to be represented in the House,” it explained.
‘Statesmanship and not brinkmanship’
In an epilogue attached to the judgment, the court also commented on Parliament and legislative assemblies “becoming more and more intransigent” places. It lamented that “the philosophical tenet, one must agree to disagree, is becoming a seldom scene or a rarity during the debates”.
The court also asserted that it was “high time” that corrective steps are taken to “restore the glory and the standard of intellectual debates of the highest order”.
“For becoming world leaders and self dependent/reliant, quality of debates in the house ought to be of the highest order and directed towards intrinsic constitutional and native issues confronting the common man of the nation/states, who are at the crossroad of semi-sesquicentennial or may we say platinum or diamond jubilee year on completion of 75 years post-independence”.
Legislators, it asserted, “are expected to show statesmanship and not brinkmanship”. The bench said this case “has thrown up an occasion for all to appropriately denounce and discourage proponents of undemocratic activities in the house, by democratically elected representatives”.
(Edited by Poulomi Banerjee)
Also read: Data for quota in promotion to be collected only for cadre, not for entire service, rules SC