'Highly excessive and disproportionate': Supreme Court quashes expulsion of Bihar MLC Sunil Kumar Singh

The court felt the committee should have adopted 'more measured and balanced approach' in the case and the House should have been magnanimous.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered immediate reinstatement of RJD's chief whip Sunil Kumar Singh as a member of the Bihar Legislative Council after finding his July 26, 2024 exclusion from the House for controversial remarks against the Chief Minister Nitish Kumar as "highly excessive and disproportionate".

A bench of Justices Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh held that the action of the ethics committee neither formed part of the ‘proceedings of the legislature’ nor was it tantamount to a ‘legislative decision’, so entertaining a plea against expulsion from member of a house would not fall foul of the restrictions imposed by Article 212 (1) of the Constitution.

Rejecting the arguments on maintainability of the writ petition, the bench said, "There is no absolute bar on the constitutional courts to examine the proportionality of the punishment imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by the House."

Judicial review of legislative decisions is not an encroachment upon legislative dominion but a necessary safeguard to uphold constitutional supremacy, the court emphasised.

The court found demeanour of the petitioner in the House as "abhorrent and unbecoming of a member of the Legislature" and subsequent conduct before the committee as "evasive and high-handed", which was "nothing but a brazen attempt to circumvent its authority".

"There is no place for aggression and indecency in the proceedings of the Parliament or the Legislature," the bench said.

Notwithstanding such conduct, the bench said that the House, as custodian of constitutional values and democratic principles, ought to exercise magnanimity and rise above petty criticism and unwarranted remarks against its members.

The actions prescribed against the petitioner will inevitably have a direct and significant impact on a vast number of stakeholders, particularly the constituents who have reposed their faith in him, it said.

"The expulsion of the petitioner is disproportionate and undoubtedly infringes his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution," the bench said.

The court said 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 should be to maintain decorum and foster an environment of constructive debate and deliberation. Any punitive measure must be proportionate and guided by considerations of fairness, reasonableness, and due process, ensuring that it does not unduly stifle democratic participation or undermine the representative nature of the institution," the bench said.

Using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court held that the period of expulsion already undergone by the petitioner is deemed to be considered as a period of his suspension, which would be the sufficient punishment for the misconduct. It modified the ethics committee's report and the notification on the expulsion of the petitioner. The court asked Singh to uphold the dignity of the house and adhere to standards of discipline while also quashing a subsequent Elections Commission's December 30, 2024 note on conducting bye-poll on his constituency.