NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for constitutional courts to scrutinise the proportionality of punishment awarded to an errant member by a legislature, thus permitting judicial scrutiny of the penalty, breaking through a self-imposed restraint to extend its jurisdiction to a matter that has traditionally been considered the domain of legislatures.
This verdict by Justices Surya Kant and N K Singh, delivered Tuesday, builds upon the apex court’s ruling in Raja Ram Pal case (cash for query) in which a five-judge bench led by CJI Y K Sabharwal had analysed the powers, privileges and immunities of members and said that Parliament and assemblies had the power to expel its members for reasons in addition to the grounds laid down in the Constitution for their disqualification.
Upholding Parliament’s decision to expel the MPs found guilty, the five-judge bench had said, “The power of expulsion is not contrary to a democratic process. It is rather part of the guarantee of a democratic process. Further, expulsion is not a decision by a single person. It is a decision taken by the representatives of the rest of the country. Finally, the power of expulsion does not bar a member from standing for re-election or the constituency from electing that member once again.”
The verdict penned by Justice Surya Kant, which quashed Bihar legislative council’s decision to expel RJD chief whip Sunil Kumar Singh, said the power of legislatures to punish an errant member was not absolute and beyond judicial scrutiny and brought definitiveness to Raja Ram Pal ruling’s general finding – “Non-existence of standards of judicial review is no reason to conclude that judicial scrutiny is ousted. If standards for judicial review of such matters as at hand are not yet determined, it is time to do so now.”
The Justice Kant-led bench laid down guidelines for constitutional courts to apply the proportionality test in scrutinising the punishment awarded to a member by the legislature, thus formalising the contours of judicial scrutiny of the punishment and to determine whether it was excessive or disproportionate to his/her proven misconduct.
Recognising the complexity of circumstances and situations inside the House leading to varied behaviour of ruling and opposition members, Justice Kant said, “Determination of what constitutes a disproportionate measure is inherently complex and context-dependent.”
“Such assessment requires a nuanced scrutiny of the specific circumstances surrounding each case. This means that a one-size-fits-all definition is impractical while adjudicating proportionality and courts must exercise their discretion in a prudent and judicious manner.”
Focussing on orderly conduct of proceedings in a House and without giving licence to any member or even the ruling party to utter anything and everything inside the House claiming immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution, the bench laid down an eight-point “indicative parameter” for constitutional courts in scrutinising the action of a House against its members:
- Degree of obstruction caused by the member in the proceedings of the House;
- Whether the behaviour of the member has brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire House;
- The previous conduct of the erring member;
- The subsequent conduct of the erring member, such as expressing remorse, cooperation with the institutional scrutiny mechanism;
- Availability of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the delinquent member;
- Whether crude expressions uttered are deliberate and motivated or a mere outcome of language largely influenced by the local dialect;
- Whether the measure adopted is suitable for furthering desired purpose; and
- Balancing the interest of society, particularly the electorate, with those of the erring member.
Justices Kant and Singh said, “We are of the view that scrutiny of the punishment given to members by the House on the above mentioned framework will ensure that the legislative actions are justified, necessary and balanced, protecting both the integrity of the legislative body and the rights of its members, as well as the larger societal objective.
“It is also 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.”