SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 394

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh – Petitioner
versus
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 530 of 2024
Decided On : 25-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranaryanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yash Johri, Adv. Ms. Priyansha Sharma, AOR Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Pradyut Sinha, Adv. Ms. Shristi Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Navin Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Ankit Agarwal, AOR Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Adv. Mr. Ashish Shukla, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, AOR

The expulsion of a member from the legislature must be proportionate to the misconduct, and actions infringing fundamental rights are subject to judicial review.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 and Article 212(1) - Writ jurisdiction - Expulsion of Member of Legislative Council (MLC) - Challenge to the Ethics Committee's report recommending expulsion due to unparliamentary conduct - The Court held that the expulsion was disproportionate to the misconduct and violated the principles of natural justice. (Paras 1, 66, 88)

(B) Judicial Review - The Court clarified that while the proceedings of the Legislature are generally immune from scrutiny, actions that infringe upon fundamental rights are subject to judicial review. (Paras 11, 12, 21)

(C) Proportionality - The Court emphasized the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions against members of the legislature, stating that punishment must correspond to the gravity of the offence. (Paras 25, 66, 72)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, an MLC, was expelled for using derogatory language against the Chief Minister during a session of the Bihar Legislative Council. The Ethics Committee found the allegations substantiated and recommended expulsion, which was ratified by the House. (Paras 2, 2.3, 2.10)

Findings of Court:
The Court found the expulsion to be excessive and disproportionate, impacting the Petitioner’s fundamental rights and the representation of his constituents. The period of expulsion was deemed sufficient punishment. (Paras 66, 88)

Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the writ petition, the proportionality of the punishment, and whether the Court could determine the appropriate punishment. (Paras 9, 66)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Ethics Committee's actions were administrative and subject to judicial review, emphasizing that expulsion is a grave measure that should be exercised with caution and proportionality. (Paras 11, 66)

Result: The Writ Petition was allowed, the expulsion was set aside, and the Petitioner was reinstated as an MLC. (Paras 88, 89)

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

1. The Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, laying challenge to Report No. 12024 dated 14.06.2024 (Impugned Report), submitted by the Ethics Committee of the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) recommending his expulsion as a Member of Legislative Council (MLC). The consequential notification dated 26.07.2024 relieving the Petitioner from the membership of the BLC issued by the BLC’s Secretariat (Impugned Notification), is also assailed.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The present controversy arises from allegations of unparliamentary conduct by the Petitioner, including the use of derogatory expressions in his capacity as an MLC within the House of the BLC. This conduct of the Petitioner prompted the initiation of proceedings against him by the Ethics Committee. The allegations were found to be substantiated, leading the Ethics Committee to recommend the Petitioner’s expulsion from the BLC. Subsequently, a resolution to that effect was passed by a majority of the members of BLC, formalising the decision to expel and relieve the Petitioner. The facts giving rise to the present petition are set out hereinbelow

2.1. The Petitioner is a member of the political party known as the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). He was elected as a member of the BLC on 29.06.2020 for a period of six years. The Petitioner was also nominated as the Chief Whip by the RJD in the BLC.

2.2. The elections for the 17th Legislative Assembly in the State of Bihar were held in November 2020, wherein a coalition government, comprising the Janata Dal (United) (JDU) led by the incumbent Chief Minister along with the RJD and the Indian National Congress (INC), was formed. This coalition, however, wedged apart in January 2024, and a new alliance between the JDU and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was entered into to form the Government in the State.

2.3. Following these developments, the Hon’ble Governor of Bihar was scheduled to deliver his address on 13.02.2024, at the 206th Session of the BLC. As soon as the Governor’s address was completed and during the motion of thanks, the Petitioner and another MLC, Md. Sohaib approached the well of the House and hurled indecent slogans against the Chief Minister. They mocked him as “Paltu Ram”, imitated his body language and sarcastically remarked that “the man who has not contested a single Mukhiya election till date is the Chief Minister of Bihar”. The Petitioner then alluded to the Chief Minister as an ‘expert in manipulations’ and insinuated that he was “just like a snake sheds its skin every year”. This indecorous fracas led to the proceedings of the House being indubitably obstructed, followed by a complaint on 19.02.2024 lodged against the Petitioner and Md. Sohaib before the Chairman of the BLC by a fellow MLC belonging to the Ruling Party JDU.

2.4. The Chairman of BLC issued a letter to the Petitioner and Md. Sohaib informing them about the complaint, which was then forwarded to the Ethics Committee for necessary enquiry. The letter also required both the MLCs to remain present and join the enquiry proceedings on 03.05.2024 before the Ethics Committee.

2.5. Md. Sohaib joined the enquiry proceedings on 03.05.2024 and expressed regret for his conduct in writing and further assured a display of restraint and caution in the future.

2.6. The Petitioner, in stark contrast, did not appear before the Ethics Committee on the date fixed and instead sought exemption, citing engagements and scheduling conflicts due to the onset of the Lok Sabha elections. The Petitioner did not join even the subsequent proceedings and continued seeking exemption from appearing for one or the other reason, which are delineated for the sake of convenience

Date of proceedings

Requests from Petitioner

Response of the Ethics Committee

03.05.2024

▪ The Petitioner was a star campaigner for his party in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections and was in charge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top