Indefinite suspension to have serious repercussions: SC on action against AAP MP Raghav Chadha

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said the indefinite suspension of a member of the Parliament would have serious repercussions on the constituency represented by him, as it decided to examine the issues related to such an action initiated against AAP MP Raghav Chadha.

The top court told the Attorney General R Venkataramani that the exclusion of a member of the Opposition from the House is a very serious matter, as he is the representative of a viewpoint which may not be consistent with the views of the government, and stressed that the Parliament must have voices from across the spectrum.

"We are all subordinate to the Constitution wherever we are whosoever we are," a bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said.

"The question is this a breach of privilege. He is the member of the Opposition. Exclusion of a member of the Opposition from the House is a very serious matter because he is the representative of his constituency. He is representative of a viewpoint which may not be consistent with the views of the government. Careful about not excluding those voices from the Parliament," the bench said.

The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, stressed that the indefinite suspension is a cause of concern.

"We can understand if the privileges committee to decide it in 15 days or a month, and 75 days have gone. Winter session is coming and this member will be out,” the bench said. 

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Raghav Chadha, said his client is willing to apologise before the court. 

“We will put it….he is ready and willing to apologize to the House, will the chairman accept the apology and obviate the need for the Supreme Court to set the law straight. We will set the law straight, make no mistake about it. We are giving you an option,” the bench told the AG.

The court noted a resolution was passed by the House and Chairman's ruling came thereafter.

The AG said the court should not deal with the matter, while raising the question of maintainability.

The bench, however, pointed out the person who disrupts the House is excluded from the rest of the session. 

"In this case, the alleged infraction is he did not verify the consent of the members for the select committee. Is this worse than that? Some proportionality is now an invented part of our jurisprudence,” the bench said.   

The bench also felt that Rules 256 and 266 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States do not apply in the present case and further queried if the inherent powers can be invoked to suspend a member indefinitely, and since there is no outer limit prescribed for the privileges committee to conclude its enquiry, would this mean that Chadha remains suspended indefinitely?

Dwivedi said his client has already apologised for the act and expressed readiness to give a written apology to the Rajya Sabha chairperson as well, but the process being followed is patently illegal and violative of the law and Constitution, and also violative of fundamental rights and conventions of the past and has dangerous consequences. 

Citing past incidents in Rajya Sabha, Dwivedi said whenever a member refused consent, that member was dropped from the committee and no punitive action was ever taken against the member who proposed the name.

The AG reiterated that the resolution was passed by the House and the chairperson was only acting on it.

He questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interfere with the exercise of privileges by the House. He said to test the rules of the House on administrative principles would be outside the purview of the court.

The AG said Chadha’s comments to the press also lowered the dignity of the House and took objection to his remark to the media that his proposals were like a "birthday invitation card".

The Chief Justice queried, "Does this really reduce the dignity of the house? He says this is like a birthday invitation card and what he obviously meant was that if you want to come, you come, does this cause a breach of privilege?"

The bench made it clear that it would not go in the jurisdiction of the privileges committee, and the only question before it is of indefinite suspension.

After a detailed hearing, the apex court asked both sides to file a compilation of their submissions and posted the matter for further hearing on Friday.

On October 16, the Supreme Court had issued notice on Chadha challenging his suspension from the Rajya Sabha and requested the Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist the court in the matter.

Chadha was suspended from the Parliament's Upper House on August 11 for “gross violation of rule, misconduct, defiant attitude and contemptuous conduct".

The action against him came in response to complaints submitted by four MPs Sasmit Patra, S Phangnon Konyak, M Thambidurai and Narhari Amin. The MPs accused him of including their names on a motion without their consent, and a complaint was lodged before Jagdeep Dhankar, the Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman. Their names were allegedly added by Chadha on a motion seeking the constitution of a select committee to study the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023.