Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court has adjudicated in favor of reinstating a legislator who was expelled from the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC), determining that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the offense. The judgement stated the principle of proportionality in legislative disciplinary actions and asserts the court's authority to review such decisions. The decision annuls the bye-election process initiated to fill the vacant seat, stating that the expulsion exceeded constitutional boundaries.

The case arose from disciplinary action taken against Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, a member of the Bihar Legislative Council, who was expelled following recommendations made by the Ethics Committee of the House. The controversy stemmed from allegations of unparliamentary conduct during the 206th session of the BLC. The petitioner, along with another member, disrupted proceedings by hurling slogans against the Chief Minister and making derogatory remarks. A complaint was subsequently filed against the petitioner and was referred to the Ethics Committee for examination.

The Ethics Committee initiated an inquiry into the allegations and issued multiple notices to the petitioner. However, the petitioner sought exemptions on multiple occasions, citing engagements related to election campaigning and other responsibilities. The Ethics Committee granted some exemptions but ultimately determined that the petitioner’s absence was deliberate and non-cooperative. Eventually, the Committee preponed its proceedings without notifying the petitioner and recommended expulsion, which was subsequently ratified by the House.

The petitioner challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, contending that the expulsion was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the punishment was excessive compared to similar cases, where members received significantly lesser penalties for comparable misconduct. Furthermore, they asserted that the Ethics Committee violated procedural fairness by not furnishing essential documents, including video footage of the alleged misconduct.

On the other hand, the respondents defended the expulsion, stating that the petitioner was given ample opportunities to appear before the Committee but failed to cooperate. The Bihar Legislative Council argued that the petitioner’s conduct was unbecoming of a public representative and that his defiance during the Ethics Committee proceedings justified his expulsion. The respondents also pointed out that the petitioner had previously been suspended for similar behaviour, demonstrating a pattern of disregard for legislative decorum.

The Supreme Court examined the maintainability of the petition in light of Article 212(1) of the Constitution, which restricts judicial review of legislative procedures. The Court stated that while procedural aspects of legislative proceedings are protected from scrutiny, substantive decisions affecting fundamental rights are subject to judicial review. The Court stated: “Judicial review of Legislative Decisions is not an encroachment upon legislative dominion but a necessary safeguard to uphold constitutional supremacy.”

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court observed that the Ethics Committee failed to adhere to basic principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to present his defense, and crucial evidence was withheld on grounds of confidentiality. The Court remarked: “A fair hearing demands access to material evidence, without which an accused cannot effectively defend themselves.” The decision to prepone the Committee’s proceedings without informing the petitioner further reinforced the Court’s finding of procedural irregularity.

On the issue of proportionality, the Court examined comparative disciplinary actions within legislative bodies and noted that lesser penalties were often imposed for similar infractions. The Court stated: “Expulsion of a member is a grave measure and normally, it should not be taken unless absolutely necessary.” It was further noted that another member involved in the same incident was merely suspended for two days, while the petitioner was expelled entirely, observing the inconsistency in punitive measures.

Additionally, the Court stated the broader democratic implications of expelling an elected representative. It observed that “The expulsion of a member deprives constituents of representation and has a direct bearing on democratic governance.” The Court stated that disciplinary actions must balance the need for maintaining order in the legislature with the fundamental right of representation.

The Court also considered the period of expulsion already undergone by the petitioner. Given that the petitioner had been expelled for nearly seven months and had missed an entire session, the Court found that further punishment would be excessive and unnecessary.

The Supreme Court issued the following directives:

1. The expulsion of the petitioner is deemed excessive and disproportionate, warranting judicial interference.

2. The period of expulsion already undergone by the petitioner shall be considered as a period of suspension, which is sufficient punishment.

3. The impugned report of the Ethics Committee and the notification regarding expulsion are set aside to the extent of the nature of punishment imposed.

4. The petitioner is reinstated as a member of the Bihar Legislative Council with immediate effect but is not entitled to remuneration or monetary benefits for the period of expulsion.

5. The Press Note issued by the Election Commission of India declaring the bye-election for the petitioner’s seat is quashed, and any actions taken pursuant to it are annulled.

6. Should the petitioner engage in future misconduct, the Ethics Committee or the Chairperson of the BLC is at liberty to take appropriate action as per the law.

Case Title: Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 530 of 2024
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

[Read/Download order]