Blog

CASE TITLE: Ajay Kumar Mahawar and Ors vs. Legislative Assembly ……. And Anr

CASE NO: W.P.(C) 2482/2024 & CM APPL. 10180/2024

DECIDED ON: 06.03.2024

QUORUM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad

FACTS OF THE CASE

The writ petitions in the instant case have been filed against a suspension motion passed in the 5^th session of the 7^th Delhi legislative assembly. The matter was further referred to the Committee of Privileges of the Legislation Assembly.

The petitioners were elected as members of the 7th Legislative Assembly. The 5^th session of the house was the budget session for 2024-25. The Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly of the House had provided a schedule. It informed the members that the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi should be addressing the house in its first session. On the day of the starting session, the petitioners are said to have interrupted the address of the lieutenant governor multiple times despite repeated warnings given by the Speaker. Since they did not comply with the warnings, they were marshalled away on the speaker’s order. After that, the motion was passed to suspend the petitioners till the Committee of Privileges submits its findings. The speaker suspended the members after getting majority votes for the motion. The speaker then challenged the motion.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

The counsel for the petitioners contended in the instant matter that when the petitioners were escorted outside the hall, the speaker already imposed the punishment under clause 44 of the fifth schedule. Contrary to this case, a punishment imposed under such a clause has to be for a definite period. Hence, punishing the petitioners yet again for the same conduct is unlawful. Additionally, the passed motion invoked Rule 6 of the fifth schedule rather than Chapter xi of the rules and procedure. Even if chapter xi could have been gathered in the instant case, the due procedure prescribed in rules 66 and 67 was not followed. Rule 68, which provides for the admissibility of such question, was also not followed. The petitioner was not allowed to be heard as per the rules, and even the reference to the committee of privileges was not done accordingly. Although the petitioner has not accepted their wrongdoings, they have submitted a written apology to the Lieutenant Governor and met the speaker in this regard. Under rule 277 of the act, the maximum punishment for breach is suspension from the house for three sittings, which in the present case has already been imposed.

 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

The counsel for the respondent contends that immediate removal of the members creating a nuisance in the house is an implied rule to maintain the decorum and dignity of the house. It cannot be considered as a punishment. Immense immunity has been provided to the members of the house, but when it comes to maintaining the decorum of the house, no such unruly behaviour shall be entertained. Moreover, the courts can only intervene in such matters if the procedure followed by the legislative bodies is downright perverse, which has yet to be proved in this case. Regarding the reference of the case to the Committee of Privileges, the same has to be done with the speaker’s consent under Chapter xi rule 70. The speaker’s consent must be obtained at two stages: first, while raising a motion in the house and second, referring the matter to the committee of privileges. The counsel agrees that there have been some discrepancies in following the proper procedure in the act, but the principle of natural justice has been fulfilled. The petitioners were heard during the discussion in the house on 16^th February 2024. It is proposed that this matter be seen in isolation since there have been multiple occasions wherein the petitioners have misbehaved, which led to their suspension. It was also contended that non-compliance with the procedure in rule 67 is just a procedural fault that cannot be constituted as illegal. 

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi

Rule 66 of chapter xi delas with raising a question of breach of privilege or contempt

ISSUES

The issue, in this case, is whether the suspension of the petitioners until the committee submits its findings is sustainable and whether the house was correct in referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges without the independent consent of the speaker. Lastly, has the house followed the due procedure prescribed by law? 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court relied on the case of Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (2022) 12 SCC 273 to justify the scope of interference. It was observed that if the powers and privileges of the legislative government are not unlimited, any arbitrary action undertaken shall attract judicial scrutiny. They are subject to the provisions of the Constitution and must compulsorily abide by it. Any ouster clause shall not stop the judiciary from reviewing the decision if the same has not been done in the proper jurisdiction if the due procedure hasn’t been followed, and if it is ultra vires to the constitution. The power to make laws is conferred to the state legislation under Article 246 of the constitution. In this case, laws must be interpreted as defined in Article 13 of the Constitution. The court stated that the state legislature can definitely deviate from the rules. Still, it must follow the specific requirements or the ‘express substantive stipulation’ under the rules stated in Article 208 of the constitution. These rules are not just procedural but hold substantive importance; hence, they must be followed. Clause 6 of the fifth schedule deals not only with the members’ code of conduct but also with the action that can be taken for such conduct after a motion for the same has been moved by the house member. Clause 44(e) of the fifth schedule empowers the house to suspend the member(s) for misconduct only for a definite period. Since the petitioners are suspended till the committee of privileges submits its findings, such a decision of the house is ultra vires to clause 44; hence, it is unsustainable.

In the instant case, since the house has unanimously decided, the rule 66 of chapter xi does not apply here. It was opined that once the house decided to take action, even rules 67 and 68 didn’t apply. If the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are to accept that rules 67 and 68 apply immediately, then it is evident that the exception in rule 68 hasn’t been followed, i.e., the petitioners were not allowed to be heard before the matter was referred to the committee of privileges. The punishment given to the petitioners has also exceeded what is specified in rule 44 of the fifth schedule. In addition, they have been punished under rule 70 for an indefinite period without being heard. Hence, suspending the petitioners was not in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Considering that the house referred the issue to the committee of privileges instead of the speaker according to rule 70 under chapter xi and the decision taken by the house pertaining to the suspension of the petitioners until the committee findings are submitted ultra vires to both chapter xi and fifth schedule. The court further held that since the petitioners have already been suspended for 14 sittings, they shall be allowed to rejoin the house promptly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by- Rashi Hora.

Click here to view judgement.