Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh [Petitioner]  Vs.  Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors. [Respondents]

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 530 OF 2024

(2JB, SURYA KANT and NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH JJ., delivered by SURYA KANT, J.)

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that there is no absolute bar on Constitutional Courts from reviewing the proportionality of punishment imposed on members of legislative bodies. The verdict was issued in response to a writ petition filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Sunil Kumar Singh, who challenged his expulsion from the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC). The Court set aside his expulsion and ordered his reinstatement.

The controversy arose when Singh was accused of using derogatory language during legislative proceedings. The Ethics Committee of the BLC found the allegations substantiated and recommended his expulsion. The BLC subsequently passed a resolution formalizing his removal. Singh challenged both the Ethics Committee’s report and the Secretariat’s notification expelling him. The Supreme Court addressed the following questions:

1. Can Constitutional Courts review the proportionality of punishment imposed by the legislature?
2. Does the action of the Ethics Committee qualify as a legislative decision and thus remain beyond judicial review?

The Court made several key observations like, the Court held that while legislative decisions generally require judicial deference, an overly harsh punishment that violates fundamental rights is subject to review. It emphasized that courts must ensure punishment aligns with constitutional values and societal norms. The Court clarified that the Ethics Committee’s action did not constitute a ‘legislative decision’ or form part of the ‘proceedings of the legislature.’ Therefore, judicial review of its recommendations was permissible. The Court recognized that excessive punishment deprives a constituency of representation, thereby undermining democratic principles. It stressed the need for a balanced approach that considers both the integrity of the House and the rights of the electorate.

The Court outlined factors to be considered when reviewing legislative expulsions:

1. Degree of obstruction caused by the member in legislative proceedings.
2. Impact on the dignity of the House.
3. Past conduct of the member.
4. Member’s remorse and cooperation with institutional scrutiny.
5. Availability of less severe disciplinary measures.
6. Context of the remarks, including regional dialect influences.
7. Effectiveness of the punishment in achieving its intended purpose.
8. Balancing the rights of the electorate with legislative discipline.

The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to substitute the punishment rather than merely quashing it. This ensured a fair resolution while maintaining the authority of legislative institutions. It warned that any future misconduct by Singh would invite strict consequences. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the principle of proportionality in legislative expulsions. While respecting legislative autonomy, it reaffirms the judiciary’s role in preventing arbitrary actions that threaten democratic representation. Singh’s expulsion was deemed excessive, and he was reinstated as an MLC.