The recent Supreme Court ruling, setting aside the suspension of 12 BJP MLAs from Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, has drawn attention towards several Constitutional principles and regulations. The year-long suspension was termed as ‘unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational’ by the apex court. In this article we delve into various aspects surrounding this decision, the arguments put forth, provisions violated, and implications of such law enforcement on India’s legislative bodies.
The Cause, The Suspension and The Reaction
The 12 MLAs were suspended due to alleged misconduct in the Assembly concerning the disclosure of data about OBCs. They challenged their suspension based on violation of natural justice principles and inhospitable procedural execution. These MLAs argued that they weren’t given a chance to defend themselves fortifying their stance that their suspension violated Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting the fundamental right to equality before the law.
Rule 53 of Maharashtra Assembly
Maharashtra Assembly’s Rule 53 stipulates that any member who defies the Speaker’s ruling or behaves in a grossly disorderly manner may be asked to withdraw from the proceeding. A second disobedience in the same session could see the offending member being asked to leave for the rest of the session.
The Maharashtra Assembly’s Defense: Articles 212 and 194
The assembly contended that under Article 212, it acted within its legislative capability, thus courts are not authorized to query legislative proceedings. The assembly affirmed the correctness of its action through Article 194 stating that any member breaching the house’s privileges can be suspended through the house’s inherent powers.
The Supreme Court’s Standpoint: Unconstitutional Suspension and Violation
The Supreme Court argued that suspension should ideally be a short-term disciplinary measure to restore order in the Assembly. It criticized this move as an effort by a bare majority coalition government to manipulate the number of opposition party members. The apex court also opined that such suspensions would result in reduced participation from the opposition during discussions/debates. It was emphasized that such long-term suspensions infringe upon the basic structure of the Constitution as the constituencies of the suspended MLAs remain unrepresented in the Assembly for a full year.
Constitutional and Statutory Requirements
The Supreme Court also highlighted Article 190 (4) of the Constitution and Section 151 (A) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. While the former allows the House to declare a seat vacant if a member is absent without permission for sixty days, the latter requires a bye-election to be held within six months from the occurrence of the vacancy. Thus, no constituency should remain without representation for more than six months.
The Implications: Punishing The Constituency
By violating these requirements, the Supreme Court said the one-year suspension was essentially punishing the constituency as a whole, rather than the offending members. This raises questions about the judiciary’s authority to intervene in legislative proceedings; however, past rulings suggest that judicial intervention is permissible in cases where the House acts unconstitutionally.
Regulation Overview: Suspension Provisions For Members Of Parliament
The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, specifically Rules 373, 374, and 374A, outline the provisions for withdrawing a member due to ‘grossly disorderly’ conduct or suspension for rule breach and willful obstruction. According to these rules, maximum suspension is for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less. Identical rules exist in Rajya Sabha, and similar guidelines are also in place for state legislative assemblies and councils.
Last Modified: February 15, 2024