Suspension of MLAs

    0
    242

    In News

    • A bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that the suspension for one year was “worse than expulsion” as the constituency is remaining unrepresented.

    About the recent issue

    • On the first day of Parliament’s winter session last month, 12 Rajya Sabha members were suspended for the remainder of the session for alleged unruly conduct on the last day of the monsoon session on a motion moved by the government.

    What have the suspended MLAs argued?

    • The challenge relies mainly on grounds of: denial of the principles of natural justice, and of violation of laid-down procedure.
    • Article 14: The 12 MLAs have said they were not given an opportunity to present their case, and that the suspension violated their fundamental right to equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution.
    • They have also submitted that they were not given access to video of the proceedings of the House: and it was not clear how they had been identified in the large crowd that had gathered in the chamber.
    • Rule 53: The MLAs have also contended that under Rule 53 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, the power to suspend can only be exercised by the Speaker, and it cannot be put to vote in a resolution as was done in this case.
      • Rule 53 states that the “Speaker may direct any member who refuses to obey his decision, or whose conduct is, in his opinion, grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Assembly”.
      • The member must “absent himself during the remainder of the day’s meeting”.

    What has Maharashtra said in its defense?

    • Undisciplined and unbecoming behavior: A counter-affidavit filed by the in-charge secretary of the state’s Parliamentary Affairs Department has pointed to the “undisciplined and unbecoming behavior” of the 12 MLAs, and the fact that the Leader of Opposition had tendered an apology.
      • There was, therefore, no question of hearing or furnishing written explanations by the MLAs, who had committed contempt of the House. It denies any violation of Article 14.
    • Article 212: Counsel for Maharashtra argued that the House had acted within its legislative competence, and that under Article 212, courts do not have jurisdiction to inquire into the proceedings of the legislature.
      • Article 212 (1) states that “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure”.
    • Article 194: The state has also referred to Article 194 on the powers and privileges of the House, and argued that any member who transgresses these privileges can be suspended through the inherent powers of the House.
    • It has denied: that the power to suspend a member can be exercised only through Rule 53 of the Assembly.

    Length of the suspension as per the Constitution 

    • The basic structure of the Constitution would be hit: if the constituencies of the suspended MLAs remained unrepresented in the Assembly for a full year.
    • The bench referred to Article 190 (4) of the Constitution, which says: “If for a period of sixty days a member of a House of the Legislature of a State is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant.”
    • Under Section 151 (A) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951: “a bye-election for filling any vacancy shall be held within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy”.
      • This means that barring exceptions specified under this section, no constituency can remain without a representative for more than six months.
    • Unconstitutional: The Supreme Court said that the one-year suspension was prima facie unconstitutional as it went beyond the six-month limit, and amounted to “not punishing the member but punishing the constituency as a whole”. 

    Rules on the length of suspension of a Member of Parliament and MLA 

    • Rules 373, 374, and 374A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha: provide for the withdrawal of a member whose conduct is “grossly disorderly”, and suspension of one who abuses the rules of the House or willfully obstructs its business.
    • The maximum suspension: as per these Rules is “for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less”.
    • Rules 255 and 256: The maximum suspension for Rajya Sabha under Rules 255 and 256 also does not exceed the remainder of the session.
      •  Several recent suspensions of members have not continued beyond the session.
    • State legislative assemblies: Similar Rules also are in place for state legislative assemblies and councils which prescribe a maximum suspension not exceeding the remainder of the session.

    Way Forward

    • The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the question of whether the judiciary can intervene in the proceedings of the House.
    • Constitutional experts, however, say that the court has clarified in previous rulings that the judiciary can intervene in case of an unconstitutional act done by the House.

    Source: IE