Summary
Twelve Maharashtra MLAs challenged their suspension for one year following alleged disorderly conduct. The Court held the resolution unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational insofar as it extended beyond the remainder of the July 2021 Monsoon Session. Legislative procedural immunity did not protect that substantive excess. The members were entitled to consequential benefits after the session ended; the remaining challenges were not examined.
Issues
- Whether legislative immunity prevented review of the one-year suspension.
- Whether the Assembly’s inherent power permitted suspension beyond the ongoing session.
Provisions considered
- Articles 194, 208 and 212(1), Constitution of IndiaLegislative privileges and procedural autonomy remained subject to constitutional limits; immunity for procedural irregularity did not shield substantive illegality. (¶¶ 22-36, 65, 69-73)
- Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of IndiaUnnecessary exclusion beyond the session was manifestly arbitrary and irrational, contrary to constitutional protections and procedure established by law. (¶¶ 27-28, 35-49)
- Rule 53, Maharashtra Legislative Assembly RulesThe graded withdrawal mechanism supplied the substantive benchmark: remainder of the day initially, and at most the remainder of the session for repetition in that session. (¶¶ 36-46, 62, 69)
- Section 151A and proviso, Representation of the People Act, 1951The ordinarily six-month period for filling vacancies, subject to statutory exceptions, illustrated how prolonged suspension deprived constituencies of representation even more severely than expulsion. (¶¶ 18(b), 55-56, 70)
Held
- The settled limits on review of legislative privileges distinguish procedural irregularity from gross illegality, irrationality and constitutional violations. The challenge to the excessive duration concerned substantive power and was justiciable. (¶¶ 22-28, 51-52, 72)
- The Assembly was not wholly without jurisdiction to act on a member’s motion with the Chair’s concurrence. But suspension for maintaining order had to follow a rational, graded protective approach; invoking inherent power did not remove the substantive limits reflected in Rule 53. (¶ 36-46)
- In the absence of an express grant authorising a different dispensation, the inherent power of suspension extended only to what was necessary for orderly functioning of the ongoing session. The recognised power of expulsion did not imply every lesser form of prolonged suspension. (¶¶ 47-54, 58-69)
- A year-long suspension created a de facto vacancy without enabling replacement, deprived constituents of representation and distorted democratic participation. Continuing it beyond the session was unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational. This conclusion concerned rationality and legal limits rather than a fresh assessment of proportional punishment. (¶¶ 27-28, 48, 54-56, 70-73)
- The resolution was ineffective only insofar as suspension extended beyond the remainder of the July 2021 Monsoon Session. Consequential membership benefits followed from that session’s expiry. Other objections were left unexamined, and the petitions were allowed on those terms without costs. (¶ 72-76)
Result
Writ petitions allowed: suspension declared ineffective beyond the remainder of the July 2021 Monsoon Session, with consequential membership benefits thereafter. No order as to costs.