Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A CJI led bench of the Supreme Court has expressed its concerns over the indefinite suspension from Rajya Sabha of Aam Aadmi Party leader and Member of Parliament from Punjab, Raghav Chadha.

"Does the person who did not take the permission of members to make them part of a committee, saying to media this was a birthday invitation, is this against the dignity of the house..this is a serious concern for us...parliament must have people from across the spectrum..its been 75 days..", the bench also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra questioned today.

Court also asked Chadha if he was willing to apologise to the Chairperson.

"Come back on Friday with a small note, three or four pages. Ultimately we have to decide the issue", court said while adjourning the matter as part heard.

On October 16, Supreme Court had issued notice in the plea by Chadha challenging the 'arbitrary action' of suspending him beyond a session of the Rajya Sabha, without any authority of law.

"Notice issued to first respondent returnable on October 30, 2023. We request the Attorney General for India to assist the court.", the order added.

Chadha was the indefinitely suspended from the service of the Rajya Sabha on August 11, 2023 for the duration of pendency of the Privileges Committee proceedings against him.

Supreme Court has been told that, on account of his suspension, the AAP leader is not able to attend the meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Committee on Subordinate Legislation, which continue their work even when the Parliament is not in session.

Filed by Advocate Shadan Farasat, the writ petition adds that Chadha's indefinite suspension on the last day of the Monsoon Session of the House, an hour before the Session was to be adjourned, which subsists today, i.e. after the completion of the Monsoon Session itself as also the Special Session that was summoned from September 18-22, 2023, is in clear breach of Rule 256 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (‘Rajya Sabha Rules’) which incorporates a categorical prohibition against the suspension of any Member for a period “exceeding the remainder of the Session.

"..in terms of Article 101(4) of the Constitution, the effect of an indefinite suspension, particularly outside the period of session is to de-facto create a vacancy after a period of sixty days, which also shows the prima facie illegality of the impugned action. A suspension cannot have an effect of expulsion and create a vacancy in the House", the petition submits.

It has been further prayed that Petitioner be granted all the consequential benefits arising from setting aside of his suspension.

Case Title: Raghav Chadha vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat & Ors