NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed Bihar Legislative Council’s July 26, 2024 decision to expel RJD leader Sunil Kumar Singh from the House for mocking and mimicking chief minister Nitish Kumar, and said the punishment was “excessive and disproportionate” to the nature of his misconduct.
While a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotishwar Singh came down heavily on Singh for his conduct on the floor of the House and before the ethics committee, it said it would be just and proper punishment to convert the more than 18-month period of expulsion as the period of suspension from the House for the RJD leader.
No place for aggression and indecency in Parl proceedings, says SC
Also, while asking the House to take him back, the bench said he would not be entitled to any remuneration or other monetary benefits for the period of his suspension.
SC had earlier stayed the by-election for the seat that had fallen vacant after Singh’s expulsion.
In a verdict which sought to strike a balance between the principle that punishment should not be disproportionate to the offence and the need for decorum and proper conduct in legislatures, the bench said,
“There is no place for aggression and indecency in the proceedings of Parliament or legislature.
Members are expected to show complete respect and deference towards each other.”
The bench said, “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.”
It emphasised that the right to speak inside the House could not be harnessed as a tool by members to insult, humiliate or defame fellow members, ministers and most importantly, the chair itself.
Simultaneously, Justices Kant and Singh said the power of the House to punish a member for misconduct or misdemeanour could not be harsh or disproportionate. “Courts must act decisively to strike down excessively harsh actions that threaten our democratic fabric while simultaneously exercising restraint to avoid encroaching upon the legislative domain. We reiterate that courts must reflect a certain degree of deference to the legislative will and wisdom, intervening only when the action prescribed is so disproportionate that it shocks the intrinsic sense of justice,” Justice Kant said.
Writing the 50-page judgment analysing the sensitive issue of legislative supremacy with regard to proceedings in the House and limited scope of judicial intervention, Justice Kant said, “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 of the punishment should be to maintain decorum and foster an environment of constructive debate and deliberation, the SC said.