<p>The Supreme Court on Friday declared the July 5, 2021 resolution passed by the Maharashtra Assembly suspending 12 Opposition BJP MLA for one year as unconstitutional, grossly illegal and irrational, by holding that there can't be suspension of a House member beyond the remainder of the session.</p>.<p>A three-judge bench presided over by Justice A M Khanwilkar ruled that in case of suspension beyond the period of the remainder of the Session or sixty days or six months, even though it is not a case of disqualification incurred by the member, it would entail in undue deprivation of the constituency.</p>.<p>"It is, therefore, a drastic measure trenching upon imposing penalty more than disciplinary or corrective measure, beyond the limited inherent powers of the House," the bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar, said.</p>.<p>Suspension beyond the Session would be bordering on punishing not only the member concerned, but also inevitably impact the legitimate rights of the constituency from where the member had been elected, it added.</p>.<p>"Anything in excess than for a day or the remainder of the ongoing Session, would not be necessary much less rational exercise of the inherent power of the Assembly. Even, Rule 53 bestows authority in the Speaker to take action against the member-only for ensuring orderly functioning of the House. The same logic must apply to the exercise of inherently limited power by the House," the bench said.</p>.<p>The top court allowed a writ petition filed by the BJP MLAs led by Ashish Shelar, who contended that a motion for unruly behaviour in the House can never be a subject matter of voting since it would enable the political party in power to virtually wipe out the opposition for some trivial acts. The decision of suspension, therefore, must rest with the Speaker and not the House, they said.</p>.<p>The bench said, "We have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned resolution suffers from the vice of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal and irrational to the extent of period of suspension beyond the remainder of the concerned Session."</p>.<p>The court held that this was not a case of mere procedural irregularity committed by the Legislature within the meaning of Article 212(1) of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The concerned Session having concluded long back in July 2021, the petitions ought to succeed, the bench said, adding suspension was a nullity, unconstitutional grossly illegal and irrational.</p>.<p>"It cannot be given effect... and must be regarded as non-est in the eyes of law," the court said. </p>.<p>The court noted that in case of expulsion of the member by the House in terms of Section 151A of the Representation of People Act 1951 Act, the Election Commission would move into action to fill in the vacancy. Moreover, the expelled member would be free to contest the mid¬term election and get re¬elected from the same constituency.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday declared the July 5, 2021 resolution passed by the Maharashtra Assembly suspending 12 Opposition BJP MLA for one year as unconstitutional, grossly illegal and irrational, by holding that there can't be suspension of a House member beyond the remainder of the session.</p>.<p>A three-judge bench presided over by Justice A M Khanwilkar ruled that in case of suspension beyond the period of the remainder of the Session or sixty days or six months, even though it is not a case of disqualification incurred by the member, it would entail in undue deprivation of the constituency.</p>.<p>"It is, therefore, a drastic measure trenching upon imposing penalty more than disciplinary or corrective measure, beyond the limited inherent powers of the House," the bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar, said.</p>.<p>Suspension beyond the Session would be bordering on punishing not only the member concerned, but also inevitably impact the legitimate rights of the constituency from where the member had been elected, it added.</p>.<p>"Anything in excess than for a day or the remainder of the ongoing Session, would not be necessary much less rational exercise of the inherent power of the Assembly. Even, Rule 53 bestows authority in the Speaker to take action against the member-only for ensuring orderly functioning of the House. The same logic must apply to the exercise of inherently limited power by the House," the bench said.</p>.<p>The top court allowed a writ petition filed by the BJP MLAs led by Ashish Shelar, who contended that a motion for unruly behaviour in the House can never be a subject matter of voting since it would enable the political party in power to virtually wipe out the opposition for some trivial acts. The decision of suspension, therefore, must rest with the Speaker and not the House, they said.</p>.<p>The bench said, "We have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned resolution suffers from the vice of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal and irrational to the extent of period of suspension beyond the remainder of the concerned Session."</p>.<p>The court held that this was not a case of mere procedural irregularity committed by the Legislature within the meaning of Article 212(1) of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The concerned Session having concluded long back in July 2021, the petitions ought to succeed, the bench said, adding suspension was a nullity, unconstitutional grossly illegal and irrational.</p>.<p>"It cannot be given effect... and must be regarded as non-est in the eyes of law," the court said. </p>.<p>The court noted that in case of expulsion of the member by the House in terms of Section 151A of the Representation of People Act 1951 Act, the Election Commission would move into action to fill in the vacancy. Moreover, the expelled member would be free to contest the mid¬term election and get re¬elected from the same constituency.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
