SC reinstates membership of RJD’s Sunil Kumar Singh in Bihar Legislative Council

New Delhi, Feb 25 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the expulsion of RJD’s Sunil Kumar Singh from Bihar Legislative Council saying that the punishment meted out to him was “excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the offence he committed”.

Terming the nature of punishment “harsh and disproportionate”, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh said: “The expulsion of the petitioner (Singh) from the House not only raises concerns about the violation of Fundamental Rights but also impacts the legal rights of his constituents.”

The Justice Kant-led Bench said that the period of expulsion already undergone is deemed to be considered as a period of Singh’s suspension, and in its view, “constitutes sufficient punishment for the misconduct displayed by him”.

It cautioned the petitioner to uphold the dignity of the House and adhere to the standards of discipline befitting its members.

“Henceforth, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to conduct himself with decorum and responsibility in legislative proceedings. Any deviation from this expectation or recurrence of misconduct will not be viewed lightly, and the concerned authority shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law,” the Supreme Court clarified.

In a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, Singh challenged the report submitted by the Ethics Committee of the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) recommending his expulsion as a Member of Legislative Council (MLC).

In February last year, Singh, along with another MLC, Md. Sohaib approached the Well of the House and hurled indecent slogans against Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. They mocked him as “Paltu Ram”, imitated his body language and sarcastically remarked that “the man who has not contested a single Mukhiya election till date is the Chief Minister of Bihar”.

Singh had then alluded to the Chief Minister as an ‘expert in manipulations’ and insinuated that he was “just like a snake sheds its skin every year”.

This conduct promoted the initiation of proceedings against him by the Ethics Committee.

The allegations of unparliamentary conduct were found to be substantiated, leading the Ethics Committee to recommend Singh’s expulsion.

Subsequently, a resolution to that effect was passed by a majority of the members, formalising the decision to expel and relieve the petitioner.

However, Md. Sohaib, on the other hand, was suspended for the first two days of the upcoming Session. During the hearing, the BLC contended that it is the prerogative of the House to regulate its business and procedure, and the decision so taken cannot be tested on the bedrock of proportionality.

The Court cannot examine the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner, as such a recourse would amount to reviewing the validity of the proceedings of the House, it added.

Declining to concur with the contention, the apex court said: “The protection under Article 212(1) operates only with respect to the ‘Proceedings in the Legislature’ on the grounds of ‘Procedural Irregularities’. It could not have been the intent of the lawmakers to circumscribe Constitutional Courts unconditionally from scrutinising the validity of the actions of the Legislature, which may encroach upon the Fundamental Rights of the members and/or citizens.”

“A decision-making authority, be it the Legislature or otherwise, while exercising its powers, must act within the limits prescribed by the Constitution. Any determination by the authority concerned, if found to be in excess of its constitutional authority or violative of Fundamental Rights, is subject to judicial probe,” added the apex court.

Further, it held that there is no absolute bar on the Constitutional Courts to examine the proportionality of the punishment imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by the House.

“By focusing on the proportionality of punishment, courts must ensure that justice aligns with constitutional values and societal norms, thereby upholding the integrity of the democratic process,” the Supreme Court said.

In its judgment, the top court said that Singh’s conduct was “abhorrent and unbecoming of a member of the Legislature” and his subsequent evasive and high-handed demeanour before the Ethics Committee was “even more egregious”.

“We have no hesitation in observing that the petitioner actively attempted to delay and obfuscate the proceedings by refusing to cooperate with the Ethics Committee. We have already elaborated on how the petitioner sought exemption from appearing before the Ethics Committee on some pretext or another. Such behaviour was nothing but a brazen attempt to circumvent the authority of the Ethics Committee. (T)he haughtiness demonstrated by the petitioner before the Ethics Committee is, no doubt, highly undignified of a Public Representative,” it said.

At the same time, Justice Kant-led Bench stressed that the House, as custodian of constitutional values and democratic principles, ought to exercise magnanimity and rise above petty criticism and unwarranted remarks against its members.

“In doing so, they would exemplify the virtues of tolerance, restraint, and institutional maturity, thereby reinforcing the dignity, impartiality, and respectability of their office,” it further said.

Setting aside the impugned report of the Ethics Committee, it directed Singh to be reinstated as a member of the BLC with immediate effect.

“However, he shall not be entitled to claim any remuneration or other monetary benefits for the period of his disbandment. The Petitioner shall be entitled to such other perks and privileges which any other similarly placed MLC is entitled to upon completion of their full tenure,” the Supreme Court said.

–IANS

pds/pgh