Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R.K. Agrawal, CJ, M. Sathyanarayanan, J
Chandhira Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly – Respondent
W.A.No.1287 of 2013

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not Indicated
For the Respondents: Not Indicated

The power of suspension of legislative members extends beyond Assembly grounds, and procedural adherence to natural justice does not nullify Assembly decisions unless serious prejudice exists.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 194 and 190(4) - Legislative Assembly rules - Suspension of Members - Writ petion filed against the suspension of six months and withholding of salary due to alleged breach of privilege during assembly proceedings - Court upheld the suspension as justified and ruled that the privilege extends beyond assembly proceedings without infracting principles of natural justice. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 34, 36)

(B) Natural justice - Definition and application - The court ruled that while principles of natural justice were partially followed, they did not vitiate the proceedings as appellants did not demonstrate any serious prejudice. (Paras 105, 108, 113)

(C) Legislative power - The court affirmed that the State Legislature has the power to suspend members for breach of privilege under Article 194, and this power is not limited by Article 190(4). (Paras 120, 122)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, members of a political party in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, were suspended for alleged misconduct which included acts against the dignity of the House as per the report of the Privilege Committee. Their suspension term was later reduced from one year to six months following a resolution in Assembly. (Paras 2.3, 2.6, 4.8)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Legislative Assembly acted within its powers under Article 194 and that the described process adhered sufficiently to the principles of natural justice. The court confirmed the findings of the Privilege Committee regarding the appellants' breach of privilege. (Paras 5.1, 5.2)

Issues: The key issues were centered on whether natural justice was violated in the suspension process, whether the legislature has the authority to suspend members beyond 60 days, and the validity of suspending salary and privileges. (Paras 3.1, 4.1)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the Assembly’s actions and recommendations aligned with legislative precedent and authority, the procedural safeguards and investigation were adequate. Mere absence of notice did not amount to denial of natural justice if no substantial prejudice was shown. (Paras 5.2)

Result: Writ appeal dismissed, affirming the decision of the lower court, with clarification that appellants could participate in Rajya Sabha elections. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

The petitioners in W.P.No.10175/2013, are the appellants and challenging the vires of the Resolution dated 26.3.2013, passed in the House of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, by and under which, they have been suspended for a period of six months and the salary and other allowances during that period, have been withheld, filed the above said writ petition and it was dismissed on 5.6.2013. The writ petitioners aggrieved by the said order, had filed this writ appeal.

2. BACKGROUND FACTS :

2.1.The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition have been narrated in detail, in the order passed in the writ petition, and therefore, it is not necessary to restate the entire facts except to briefly state certain facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal.

2.2.The appellants/writ petitioners, who are six in number, belong to Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) and they are Members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from May, 2011, and represent the respective Constituency, from where, they got elected.

2.3.The first appellant is the Whip of the Party and the party, in which, he belongs, is declared as the "Opposition Party" in the Legislature and in the Assembly Election held during May, 2011, 29 members belonging to the said Party, were elected as Members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (MLAs), out of which, 4 without resigning from the Party, started behaving independently with an intention to cause split to the political party viz. DMDK. One such member viz. Thiru. Tamilalazhagan, got elected from the Thitakudi Constituency and 3 others viz. Thiru. Michael Rayappan, Thiru. R.Sundarajan and Thiru. Arunpandiyan, without getting permission from the Whip of the party viz. the first appellant herein, but with the permission of the Speaker, who according to the appellants herein, was carrying on colourable exercise of power, started making statements in support of the Ruling Party and also made threatening statements against the members of the DMDK Party and their activities caused disturbance and discomfort in the minds of the other Members of the said Party and they have also agitated.

2.4.On 8.3.2013, the provocation was passed by Mr.Tamilalazhagan and other MLAs viz. Tvl. Michael Rayappan, R.Sundarajan and Arunpandiyan, and they were ably supported by the MLAs belonging to the Ruling Party, and in this regard, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly by invoking Rule 226 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, had referred the matter alleging breach of privilege, to the Privilege Committee for the purpose of investigation and submission of report. The MLAs viz. The appellants herein, along with Tvl. Parthiban, Sekar and Muthukumar were also said to have been involved in the alleged breach of privilege.

2.5. According to the appellants, the Privilege Committee has conducted proceedings without issuing any notice to the appellants herein and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, fair play and good conscience, gave its report stating that the appellants are guilty of breach of privilege. As per the majority opinion of the Privilege Committee, it was recommended that the appellants, who had indulged in acts of assaulting a Member inside the house, have to be suspended for a period of one year and during that period, are also not eligible to receive salary and other allowances and the said report dated 21.3.2013, was placed before the Assembly and was put to vote and by majority, it was accepted.

2.6. The Hon'ble Speaker of the Assembly announced that as per the Resolution passed, the appellants have been suspended from the Assembly for a period of one year from that date and during that period, are ineligible to receive salary and other allowances. On 26.3.2013, the Leaders of the other Political Parties made a request for remission of the suspension period and the Hon'ble Chief Minister, taking into consideration the said plea, recommended that the period of punishment i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAR.K. Agrawal, CJ, M. Sathyanarayanan, JChandhira Kumar – AppellantVersusTamil Nadu Legislative Assembly – RespondentW.A.No.1287 of 2013

The power of suspension of legislative members extends beyond Assembly grounds, and procedural adherence to natural justice does not nullify Assembly decisions unless serious prejudice exists.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R.K. Agrawal, CJ, M. Sathyanarayanan, J
Chandhira Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly – Respondent
W.A.No.1287 of 2013