The power of judicial review forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and the Court's decision was based on the examination of the scope of judicial review in matters of legislative assembly suspension.

1. The petitioner is an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly from Rishivanthiyam Assembly Constituency. He is also the leader of the Opposition, by virtue of being elected as the leader of the D.M.D.K. party which has the largest number of elected members other than the party which formed the Government. He has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the resolution of the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly, suspending him for a period of ten days.

2. I have heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel representing Dr.S.Manimaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Guru Krishna Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent and Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General assisting the Court as Amicus Curiae.

3. On 01.02.2012, an incident happened in the House of the State Legislative Assembly, when the discussion on the motion of thanks to the Governor's address was in progress. Immediately, the Speaker evicted the petitioner and all the elected members belonging to his party viz., The Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (in short "DMDK") from the House and referred the matter to the Privileges Committee. On the evening of the same day, namely, 01.02.2012, the Privileges Committee met and decided to call upon the petitioner to explain his conduct that was perceived by them as a misconduct. Accordingly, a notice was issued by the first respondent herein calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Privileges Committee on 02.02.2012 at 9 am to offer his explanation.

4. The petitioner did not appear in person before the Privileges Committee on 02.02.2012. Instead, he submitted a reply. After taking his reply on record, the Privileges Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner and the other elected members belonging to the aforesaid party committed a breach of privilege of the House. Therefore, it appears that the Privileges Committee submitted a report immediately, recommending the suspension of the petitioner for a period of ten days from the service of the House. The report of the Committee was presented to the House immediately and a supplementary agenda was included in the listed business of the House for considering the report of the Privileges Committee. Thereafter, the House was informed that due to lack of time, sufficient printed copies of the report could not be circulated and that five copies of the report were made ready and placed in the Legislative Library for the perusal of the members. But, a copy was furnished to the Deputy Leader of the DMDK party in the House.

5. Thereafter, the Leader of the House moved a motion which was put to vote. It was carried by a voice vote. After it was carried by a voice vote, the Deputy Leader of the DMDK party demanded a discussion on the issue. But, the same was turned down and the Speaker of the Assembly announced that the petitioner was suspended from the service of the House for a period of ten days, part of which would be covered in the same Session and the remainder covered in the next session. It was also informed that during the period of suspension, the petitioner will not receive any of the benefits, salary, privileges or entitlements, as admissible to him in his capacity as a sitting member and as the Leader of the Opposition. The other members of the DMDK party were pardoned, on condition that they shall uphold the majesty and decorum of the House, in future. Therefore, challenging his suspension, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

6. The writ petition was admitted on 22-2-2012 by S.Rajeswaran,J. In M.P.No.1 of 2012 praying for interim stay of the impugned resolution, the learned Judge passed an order directing the matter to be listed on 2-3-2012 for arguments both on the question of maintainability and on the question of stay. Thereafter, the petition was stay was posted before me on 9-3-2012. On 9-3-2012, the learned Counsel on both sides sought adjournment to 14-3-