On February 25, 2025, Justice Surya Kant pronounced the judgment of the Division Bench comprising Justice N. Kotiswar Singh in Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh vs. Bihar Legislative Council (2025) wherein it provided an outline of guiding principles for courts to
consider while scrutinising the proportionality of actions taken by the
House against its member(s). An indicative list of such parameters
includes:
(a) Degree of obstruction caused by the member in the
proceedings of the House;
(b) Whether the behaviour of the member has brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire House;
(c) The previous conduct of the erring member;
(d)
The subsequent conduct of the erring member, such as expressing
remorse, cooperation with the institutional scrutiny mechanism;
(e) Availability of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the delinquent member;
(f)
Whether crude expressions uttered are deliberate and motivated or a
mere outcome of language largely influenced by the local dialect;
(g) Whether the measure adopted is suitable for furthering the desired purpose; and
(h) Balancing the interest of society, particularly the electorates, with those of the erring members.
A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court on August 8, 2024 by Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the former Member, Bihar Legislative Council (MLC) to challenge the 112-page long Report No. 1/2024 dated June 14, 2024 submitted by Dr. Ramvachan Rai, the current Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council and senior leader of JDU and the head Ethics Committee of the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) recommending his expulsion as a MLC. He had also assailed the consequential notification dated July 26, 2024 relieving Dr. Singh, the petitioner from the membership of the BLC issued by the BLC’s Secretariat. The other members of the Ethics Committee were: Neeraj Kumar, Dt, Madan Mohan Jha, Prof. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ashok Kumar Pandey, Prof. (Dr.) Rajyavardhan Azad and Dr. Pramod Kumar. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated as member of the BLC with immediate effect by the Court.
The judgement reads:"we set aside the
Impugned Report of the Ethics Committee as well as the Notification of
the BLC, only to the extent of nature of punishment it recommends to be
imposed on the Petitioner." It reads: "The Petitioner is directed 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. The Petitioner shall be
entitled to such other perks and privileges which any other similarly
placed MLC is entitled to upon completion of their full tenure. For the
limited purpose of post-tenure benefits, if any, the Petitioner shall be
deemed to have served as MLC for the entire tenure. Should the
Petitioner indulge further in such misconduct upon his reinstatement, we
leave it to the Ethics Committee or Chairperson of the BLC to take
appropriate action, in accordance with law."
Supreme Court judgement noted that the petitioner has already undergone almost 7 months of expulsion. He has also missed the 208th Session of the BLC held between 25.11.2024 and 29.11.2024, and since his term is expiring in the year 2026, the Petitioner is left with a short duration....It is settled law that the extraordinary powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cases where remitting the matter would result in undue delay and where the interests of justice demand a swift resolution. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that the exceptional situation before us warrants invocation of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice between the parties."
It observed: "Balancing the competing considerations, we hold that the period of expulsion already undergone by the Petitioner is deemed to be considered as a period of his suspension; and in our view, constitutes sufficient punishment for the misconduct displayed by him. Accordingly, the Impugned Report of the Ethics Committee and the subsequent Notification notifying the expulsion of the Petitioner deserves to be modified to that extent."
The Court clarified that the indulgence extended by the Court "in reducing the punishment imposed on the Petitioner should not be misconstrued as condonation of his conduct. This Court has exercised its discretion squarely in the interests of proportionality and fairness. Consequently, the Petitioner is expected to uphold the dignity of the House and adhere to the standards of discipline befitting its members. Henceforth, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to conduct himself with decorum and responsibility in legislative proceedings. Any deviation from this expectation or recurrence of misconduct will not be viewed lightly, and the concerned authority shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The Court rejected the objection raised by the respondents against the maintainability of the petition. The issues raised in the Writ Petition do not fall within the restrictions outlined under Article 212 (1) of the Constitution of India. 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. The punishment meted out to the Petitioner was highly excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct committed by him.
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh was elected as a MLC June on 29, 2020 for a period of six years. He was nominated as the Chief Whip by the RJD in the BLC.The case was registered on August 23, 2024. On August 30, 2024, it came up before the division bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Priyansha Sharna, Advocate and other counsels represented the petitioner. On January 15, 2025, the division bench of Justices Surya Kant and P. Kotiswar Singh passed an order saying,"the result of bye election in the State Legislative Council in respect of the vacancy caused by removal of the petitioner, shall not be declared." During the pendency of the petition, the Election Commission of India, respondent no. 6 issued a Press Note dated December 30, 2024 declaring the bye-election for the seat held by the petitioner before his expulsion. The election process was resolved to be completed before January 25, 2025. Considering the impact of the notified election on the outcome of the petition, the declaration of the result of the bye-election was stayed by the Court. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the actions against the petitioner were actuated by mala fide and suffered from gross illegalities, both in procedure and substance. The expulsion of the petitioner from the membership of BLC was violative of the principles of natural justice, fair and just play, as the relevant material, including the video clip containing his transgressions were not furnished to him. The petitioner was denied access to the material evidence on the pretext that the proceedings of the House are confidential and could only be perused by him during the meetings of the Ethics Committee. The petitioner was thus caused inexorable prejudice in the matter of preparing his defence. The Ethics Committee explicitly assured the petitioner on June 12, 2024 that charges would be framed only after receiving all the relevant material, for which the next date of proceeding was fixed on June 19, 2024. But the Ethics Committee, unilaterally and deliberately advanced the date of hearing to June 14, 2024 without his knowledge. The petitioner has thus been condemned unheard, and in a manner which reeks of malice and amounts to gross illegality. The Ethics Committee’s report dated June 14, 2024 was circulated selectively with the members belonging to the ruling party, and was kept confidential from the members belonging to the opposition parties. Such members being in the minority could not effectively participate in the proceedings. The petitioner has been hammered with severe punishment, disproportionate to the attributed misconduct and also in comparison to despite facing somewhat similar allegations, was awarded suspension of two days from the upcoming Session. It is settled law that a ‘graded’ approach is required where the House is disciplining its members. Deviation from such an approach in the case of the Petitioner is not based on any sufficient material, and the disproportionate punishment imposed on him falls foul of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The arguments were heard and order was reserved on January 29, 2025. In its judgement dated February 25, 2025, the Court quashed the Press Note dated December 30, 2024 issued by Election Commission of India, the respondent No. 6 declaring the bye-election for the seat earlier held by the petitioner. It annulled any action taken pursuant to such Press Note.
The Court relied on its decision in Ashish Shelar and Ors. vs. The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and Anr; (2022) 12 SCC 273 wherein it was held that the substantive disciplinary or rationality of the self-security measure inflicted upon the erring member is open to judicial review on the touch stone of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal, irrational or arbitrary. In Ashish Shelar case, the Court held that: “The sweep of Article 21 is expansive enough to govern the action of dismembering a member from the House of the legislative assembly in the form of expulsion or be it a case of suspension by directing withdrawal from the meeting of the Assembly for the remainder of the Session”.
In Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon’ble Speaker of Lok Sabha; (2007) 3 SCC 184, the Court recognised the power of the Legislature to expel a member. However, it laced the existence of such power with a word of caution. It was held that the “expulsion of a member is a grave measure and normally, it should not be taken”. Needless to say, the expulsion of a member from the House constitutes a higher degree of deprivation and must only be sustained in exceptional circumstances.
The Court has consistently acknowledged that "the degree of punishment should be commensurate to the gravity of the offence, such that it is consistent with the principle of proportionality." It observed:"the principle of proportionality also finds purchase in something as fundamental as the interpretation of statutes, which, in turn, colours all the spheres of law we have previously laid out. Statutory interpretation is that unique tool a jurist possesses to give meaningful voice to the law enacted by the Legislature, and it has been our jurisprudence to always read proportionality into the laws we seek to interpret."
It underlined that "Indian experience with ‘due process’ began with the reading of proportionality into our grund norm, i.e. the Indian Constitution" in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India; (1978) 1 SCC 248. The Court referred to its decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr.; (2014) 8 SCC 273.
The incident which led to expulsion of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh took place on February 13, 2024, at the budget session of the BLC after the completion of the Governor’s address during the motion of thanks. He approached the well of the House and raised slogans against the Chief Minister, mocking him as “Paltu Ram”. A complaint was lodged against him before the chairman, BLC by Bhishma Sahni, the ruling JDU MLC on February 19, 2024. The judgement records:"The Ethics Committee, in somewhat of an unusual manner, preponed the proceedings from 19.06.2024 to 14.06.2024 without any notice to the Petitioner."
The Court observed: "it is evident that the demeanour of the Petitioner in the House was abhorrent and unbecoming of a member of the Legislature. We are constrained to add that the Petitioner’s subsequent evasive and high-handed demeanour before the Ethics Committee was even more egregious. We have no hesitation in observing that the Petitioner actively attempted to delay and obfuscate the proceedings by refusing to cooperate with the Ethics Committee. We have already elaborated on how the Petitioner 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. Even when the Petitioner finally appeared before the Ethics deemed it appropriate to question the authenticity and legitimacy of the Ethics Committee itself. The Petitioner, who has served as his party’s Chief Whip in the BLC, cannot possibly claim that he was unaware of the provisions under which the Ethics Committee was constituted and conducted its proceedings. The haughtiness demonstrated by the Petitioner before the Ethics Committee is, no doubt, highly undignified of a Public Representative.
It also observed: "we are at the same time of the considered view that the House, as custodian of constitutional values and democratic principles, ought to exercise magnanimity and rise above petty criticism and unwarranted remarks against its members. In doing so, they would exemplify tolerance, restraint, and institutional maturity, thereby reinforcing the dignity, impartiality, and respectability of their office. While we do not discount the fundamental principle that an individual must bear the consequences of their actions, we are equally mindful that the ramifications of such a decision extend beyond the Petitioner alone. The actions prescribed against the Petitioner will inevitably have a direct and significant impact on a vast number of stakeholders, particularly the constituents who have reposed their faith in the Petitioner as their representative. Their 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. While dealing with individuals, such as the Petitioner, it is imperative that disciplinary measures are undertaken with due regard to the principles of proportionality and fairness. The House, in the exercise of its authority to regulate its own proceedings and maintain order, must not lose sight of the necessity for a calibrated and judicious approach. In fact, this aspect is already prescribed in the Rules governing the procedure of the BLC. In this regard, our attention was drawn to Rule 10, Procedure and Conduct of Business, which provides for the penalties that the Ethics Committee may recommend. A perusal of the provision depicts that 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. This Court, in a series of decisions, has consistently held that punishment disproportionate to the offence or action is in direct violation of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14 and 21.32 The expulsion of the Petitioner from the House not only raises concerns about the violation of Fundamental Rights but also impacts the legal rights of his constituents. We find that the disproportionate nature of the punishment imposed by the House in expelling the Petitioner pricks the conscience of this Court compelling it to intervene on the sheet anchor of justice and fairness."
The Court felt that a "more measured and balanced approach would have sufficed to address the misconduct while upholding the dignity and decorum of the House." It reiterated that "the principle of proportionality is a cornerstone of our judicial system, and it mandates that the severity of the punishment must correspond to the gravity of the offence." The judgement reads: we hold that the punishment meted out to the Petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the offence he committed."
Notably, Devesh Chandra Thakur, chairman, BLC had ordered the disqualification of RJD’s Rambali Singh as MLC on a petition filed by Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, RJD’s deputy chief whip Rambali Singh was elected as a member of the legislative council (MLC) in June 2020 as an RJD nominee from the assembly quota and his term was to expire in 2026. RJD had disapproved of his campaign against the state government’s decision to include Teli, Tamoli, Chaurasia and Dangi castes among the extremely backward classes (EBCs) in 2015. RJD deemed his stance to be anti-party activities. Rambali Singh has been fighting for the rights of 110 extremely backward castes (EBCs). In November 2023, as RJD’s deputy chief whip Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh had petitioned the BLC chairman to disqualify Rambali Singh and the council secretariat had issued the latter two show-cause notices but Rambali Singh did not reply. Rambali Singh approached the Patna High Court once he came to know about the disqualification proceedings, but he did not get any relief from the court. The Court had directed him to approach the chairman, BLC. Rambali Singh had filed a case in the High Court and the Supreme Court against the government’s 2015 order to include Teli, Tamoli, Chaurasia and Dangi castes among the extremely backward classes (EBCs) without any success. He had undertaken taken padyatra in support of his cause on October 2, 2023 from Karpoori Gram village of Samastipur, the native place of former Bihar chief minister Bharat Ratna Karpoori Thakur.
It is noteworthy that Karpoori Thakur who was removed from the position of Leader of Opposition on two occasions on October 4, 1982 by Radhanandan Jha, the Speaker, Bihar State Assembly and on August 11, 1987 by Shiv Chandra Jha, the Speaker, Bihar State Assembly, did not get relief from the Court like Dr, Sunil Kumar Singh. But Rambali Singh is yet to get relief from the Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment