Read Time: 06 minutes

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved order in the plea filed by Bhartiya Janta Party MLA's challenging the resolution passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly suspending the BJP MLA's for a period of one year over alleged misbehavior with the presiding officer.

A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar noted, "suspending, it has to be with the intention to discipline."

The petition has been filed challenging the suspension of 12 BJP MLAs - Sanjay Kute, Ashish Shelar, Abhimanyu Pawar, Girish Mahajan, Atul Bhatkalkar, Parag Alavni, Harish Pimpale, Ram Satpute, Vijay Kumar Rawal, Yogesh Sagar, Narayan Kuche and Kirtikumar Bangdia stating that under the Maharashtra Legislative Council Rules, Rule 59, the Speaker has the sole right to suspend members on the ground of unruly behavior, however, in this case, the suspension has taken place after a resolution of the assembly.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appearing for the MLAs submitted that "The action of the house falls foul and suspension is illegal and unconstitutional."

Jethmalani further added that "They have not told about the source of the power to suspend for a period of one year, there are no grounds, authorities, book whatever are furnished."

In addition to this Jethmalani referred to the 1950 ruler stating that "What was there is 1950, the same thing prevails in England even today. UK website says the standing orders are rules through which assembly conducts its business."

The bench in furtherance to this asked Jethmalani to place the Standing orders before the bench, while stating that "and yet there is no disqualification in our scheme, in our scheme he can get re-elected."

Senior Advocate Niraj Kishan Kaul appearing for the MLAs submitted that "If it is used in a disproportionate manner the Supreme Court has said, all these legislative privileges are not an end in themselves."

In addition to this Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi also appearing for the MLAs submitted that  the spirit of the rule has to be maintained, "what is the purpose of making the rules otherwise when you don't follow. The decision of suspension for 1 year is grossly irrational," Rohatgi added.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar also argued for the MLAs stating that if the house doesn't exercise the power, there would be a 'defacto vacancy', by not declaring it vacant and being kept vacant.

The bench reserved its order while noting that the arguments stand concluded and allowing the counsels to file written notes within a period of 1 week.

Earlier, the State of Maharastra had concluded arguments in Supreme Court put forth by Senior Advocate CA Sundaram stating that  that there is no absolute power with the privilege committee, it is bound by the constitution and the law made by parliament.

Case Title: Ashish Shelar and Ors. Vs. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly