The Supreme Court bench lof Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar on January 28, 2022 set aside the one-year suspension of 12 BJP MLAs from the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly.
- The bench observed that the decision to suspend them for a year was ‘unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational’.
- The apex court said that the 12 MLAs are entitled to all consequential benefits of being members of the Assembly on and after the session in July 2021 ended.
Background
- On July 5, 2021, 12 BJP MLAs were suspended for a year after a resolution to suspend them was passed by the Maharashtra Assembly.
- The MLAs then filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and the State of Maharashtra and asked for the suspension to be quashed.
What were the arguments of 12 BJP MLAs?
- They argued that they were not given an opportunity to present their case and that the suspension violated their fundamental right to equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution.
- They also contended that under Rule 53 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, the power to suspend can only be exercised by the Speaker, and it cannot be put to vote in a resolution as was done in this case.
What were the arguments of the Assembly and States?
- The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and the state argued that that House had acted within its legislative competence, and that under Article 212, courts do not have jurisdiction to inquire into the proceedings of the legislature.
- Article 212 (1) states that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure”.
- The state also argued that a seat does not automatically become vacant if the member does not attend the House for 60 days but it becomes vacant only if declared so by the House. It was submitted that the House is not obligated to declare such a seat vacant.
What are the observations of Supreme Court?
- The Supreme Court bench said that the suspension has to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 53. The suspension of a member must be preferred as a short term or a temporary, disciplinary measure for restoring order in the Assembly.
- Rule 53 only provides for the withdrawal of a member for the remainder of the day or in case of repeat misconduct in the same session, for the remainder of the session.
- The one-year suspension is worse than expulsion or disqualification or resignation as far as the rights of the constituency to be represented in the House are concerned.
- The court said that a thin majority coalition government could use such suspensions to manipulate the number of Opposition party members and that Opposition will not be able to effectively participate in discussions/debates in the House fearing suspension of its members for a longer period.
- The apex court ruled that procedures are open to judicial review on the touchstone of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal, irrational or arbitrary.
- The court referred to Article 190 (4) of the Constitution of India, which says, “If for a period of sixty days a member of a House of the Legislature of a State is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant.”
- Under Section 151 (A) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, a bye-election for filling any vacancy shall be held within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy.
(Source: IE)
GS TIMES UPSC PRELIMS & MAINS CURRENT AFFAIRS BASED BASICS DAILY ONLINE TEST CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS QUIZ FOR STATE CIVIL SERVICES
