Recently, the Supreme Court quashed a one-year suspension of 12 Maharashtra BJP MLAs.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Irrational act: It was an unreasonable and unconstitutional act that went beyond the Assembly's jurisdiction.
Legality: The court ruled that suspending a sitting legislator beyond the current session was unlawful.
Setup in the Democratic Party: It would have an impact on the democratic system, leave constituencies unrepresented, and aid administrations with a "thin majority" in manipulating numbers.
Vacancy in fact: Suspension for a year would be considered punitive and a more severe punishment than expulsion. Suspension for an extended period of time or beyond the session results in a de facto vacancy, though not a de jure vacancy
Worse than being disqualified: During the hearing, the Bench had informally agreed that a longer suspension was worse than exclusion from the House.
Article 190 (4): "If a member of a House of the Legislature of a State is absent from all sessions thereof for a period of sixty days without permission of the House, the House may declare his seat vacant," reads Article 190(4).
The Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 151 (A): A bye-election to fill any vacancy in the House must be held within six months of the vacancy's occurrence. This means that, with the exclusions listed in this section, no constituency can go longer than six months without a representation.
Participation of the opposition: The court ruled that such suspensions would jeopardise the Opposition's capacity to participate effectively in House debates.
Arguments of the MLAs:
Violation of Natural Justice: The suspension of the MLAs was a severe violation of the principles of natural justice because they were not given the opportunity to be heard. The 12 legislators were entitled to all of the Assembly's privileges.
Article 14: According to Article 14 of the Constitution, the suspension infringed on their fundamental right to equality before the law.
Section 53: MLAs have also argued that the power to suspend may only be exercised by the Speaker under Rule 53 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, and that it cannot be submitted to a vote in a resolution, as was done in this case.
Arguments of Maharashtra Assembly:
Article 212 (1): "The validity of any actions in the Legislature of a State shall not be called into doubt on the ground of any purported irregularity of process," according to Article 212(1).
Article 194: Under the inherent powers of the House, any member who violates the privileges granted may be suspended.
Way Forward
The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether the judiciary has the authority to intervene in House proceedings.
Constitutional experts, on the other hand, claim that the court has previously stated that the judiciary can interfere if the House acts in an illegal manner.
