Read Time: 17 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on February 25, 2025, held that the expulsion of RJD chief whip Sunil Kumar Singh from the Bihar Legislative Council on July 26, 2024, was excessive and disproportionate to his misconduct, which included controversial remarks against CM Nitish Kumar during House proceedings.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh ordered his immediate reinstatement as an MLC while modifying the decision of his expulsion. The bench, however, found his conduct abhorrent and unbecoming of a member of the Legislature but provided him relief by applying the doctrine of proportionality.

Court held the writ petition filed by Singh as maintainable against the recommendations made by the Ethics Committee and subsequent action of expulsion from the house.

"The issues raised in this writ petition do not fall within the restrictions outlined under Article 212 (1) of the Constitution of India. 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," the bench said.

It pointed out that the impugned report recommending the expulsion of the petitioner was made by the Ethics Committee in the discharge of its administrative functions.

It is well established that administrative actions, even when undertaken by legislative bodies or their committees, are subject to judicial review where they affect the rights and interests of individuals, the court said.

"If such an administrative decision is found to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of constitutional rights, it is open to judicial intervention in the same manner as any other executive action of the State. Determining whether an impugned action or breach is an exempted irregularity or justiciable illegality is a matter of judicial interpretation and would undoubtedly fall within the ambit of Constitutional Courts," the bench said.

Court held that the action of the Ethics Committee neither forms part of the ‘Proceedings of the Legislature’ nor is it tantamount to a ‘Legislative Decision’.

"Accordingly, entertaining the instant petition would not fall foul of the restrictions imposed by Article 212 (1) of the Constitution," the bench said.

Referring to the doctrine of proportionality, the bench said that Constitutional Courts assume a crucial role in ensuring that the actions imposing punishments on members are proportionate and just. This is achieved through a structured approach that balances legislative authority with judicial oversight.

"Imposing a disproportionate punishment not only undermines democratic values by depriving the member from participating in the proceedings of the House but also affects the electorates of the constituency who remain unrepresented," the court said.

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 bench said.

Court highlighted it is imperative that such legislative action remains mindful of the fundamental principle that the purpose of imposing punishment is not to serve as a tool for retribution but rather to uphold and enforce discipline within the House.

"The primary objective should be to maintain decorum and foster an environment of constructive debate and deliberation. Any punitive measure must be proportionate and guided by considerations of fairness, reasonableness, and due process, ensuring that it does not unduly stifle democratic participation or undermine the representative nature of the institution," the bench said.

Examining the issue of whether the petitioner’s expulsion was proportionate to the offence alleged against him, the bench said there is no place for aggression and indecency in the proceedings of the Parliament or the Legislature.

"Members are expected to show complete respect and deference towards each other. This expectation is not merely a matter of tradition or formality; it is essential for the effective functioning of democratic processes. It ensures that debates and discussions are productive, focused on the issues at hand, and conducted in a manner that upholds the dignity of the institution. The right to speak inside the House cannot be harnessed as a tool to insult, humiliate or defame a fellow member, Ministers and most importantly, the Chair itself," the bench said.

Based on the material placed on record, the court found, that the demeanor of the petitioner in the House was "abhorrent and unbecoming of a member of the Legislature".

The petitioner’s subsequent evasive and high-handed demeanor before the Ethics Committee was even more egregious, it noted.

"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. Such behaviour was nothing but a brazen attempt to circumvent the authority of the Ethics Committee," the bench said.

"The haughtiness demonstrated by the petitioner before the Ethics Committee is, no doubt, highly undignified of a public representative," it added.

Court also noted a deliberate attempt to undermine the regulatory process and thwart the dispensation of justice.

"We are also mindful of the fact that the petitioner has demonstrated similar misconduct previously as well, for which he was suspended from the House for a brief period," the bench said.

Notwithstanding such conduct, the bench felt 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," the bench said.

Court pointed out that actions prescribed against the petitioner will inevitably have a direct and significant impact on a vast number of stakeholders, particularly the constituents who have reposed their faith in him as their representative. Their voices, aspirations, and democratic rights cannot be disregarded, and it is in furtherance of these principles that the needs and interests of the electorate must take precedence in any decision that affects their representation in a democratic forum, it said.

"While dealing with individuals, such as the petitioner, it is imperative that disciplinary measures are undertaken with due regard to the principles of proportionality and fairness. The House, in the exercise of its authority to regulate its own proceedings and maintain order, must not lose sight of the necessity for a calibrated and judicious approach," the bench said.

Stressing that the principle of proportionality is a cornerstone of our judicial system, and that the severity of the punishment must correspond to the gravity of the offence, the bench held that the punishment meted out to the petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the offence he committed.

"The expulsion of the petitioner is disproportionate and undoubtedly infringes his Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution," the bench said.

Invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench held that the period of expulsion already undergone by the petitioner is deemed to be considered as a period of his suspension, as sufficient punishment for the misconduct displayed by him.

The court modified the impugned report of the Ethics Committee and the subsequent Notification on the expulsion of the petitioner.

As a consequence, it directed that the petitioner would be reinstated as member of the Bihar Legislative Council with immediate effect.

The court, however, clarified its decision to reduce the punishment imposed on the petitioner should not be misconstrued as condonation of his conduct.

"This court has exercised its discretion squarely in the interests of proportionality and fairness. Consequently, the petitioner is expected 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," it said.

The court said should the petitioner indulge further in such misconduct upon his reinstatement, the Ethics Committee or Chairperson of the Legislative Council would have all the liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

After providing relief to the petitioner, the bench also quashed the Election Commission's press note of December 30, 2024, announcing bye poll on the seat held by the petitioner.

Case Title: Dr Sunil Kumar Singh Vs Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) & Ors