Many questions have been raised recently regarding the suspension of 12 members from the Maharashtra legislative assembly. This event has led to a discussion about several aspects of our constitution, such as Article 14, Article 194, the basic structure of the Constitution, and Section 151(A) of The Representation of People Act, 1951 among others.
The Scenario Leading to Suspension
The 12 MLAs were suspended for allegedly misbehaving and disclosing data regarding OBCs during an assembly session. The suspended MLAs have contested this suspension citing denial of principles of natural justice and violation of laid-down procedures. They assert that they were not given an opportunity to defend themselves. They further claimed that their suspension violated their fundamental right to equality before the law as stated in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Rule 53 of Maharashtra Assembly
According to Rule 53 of the Maharashtra Assembly, the Speaker holds the power to instruct any member to withdraw from the assembly whose conduct he deems grossly disorderly. If a member refuses to obey this command, they may face immediate suspension. Repeated disobedience may result in the member being ordered to remain absent for an extended period of time not exceeding the remainder of the session.
Arguments by Maharashtra Assembly
The Maharashtra Assembly argued that its actions were within legislative competence under Article 212, which states that courts cannot question the proceedings of the legislature. It also referenced Article 194, asserting that any member who infringes these privileges can be suspended through the House’s inherent powers. The assembly maintained that the power to suspend a member is not solely exercised through Rule 53.
Supreme Court’s Stance
In response, the Supreme Court voiced concern about violating the basic structure of the Constitution. It believes that leaving the suspended MLAs’ constituencies unrepresented for a year would go against this structure. It further mentioned Article 190 (4) which states that a member’s seat can be declared vacant if they remain absent for sixty days without the House’s permission. The court also pointed out Section 151 (A) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandates that vacancies must be filled within six months. From this perspective, the Supreme Court deemed the one-year suspension unconstitutional and akin to punishing the entire constituency.
Question of Supreme Court Intervention
There is now a question regarding the judiciary’s right to intervene in the proceedings of the House. constitutional experts have previously clarified that the judiciary does have the right to step in if an unconstitutional act has been committed by the House.
Provisions for Suspension of a Member of Parliament
The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha provide guidelines for withdrawing a member due to grossly disorderly conduct or deliberate obstruction of business as per rules 373, 374, and 374A. The maximum punishment according to these rules is suspension for five consecutive sessions or for the rest of the session. Similar provisions exist for Rajya Sabha under Rules 255 and 256, and similar rules are in place for state legislative assemblies and councils.