Expulsion of RJD MLC over criticising CM excessive: SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the expulsion of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) legislator Sunil Kumar Singh from the Bihar legislative council, ruling that the punishment was “excessive” and “disproportionate,” even as it underscored the necessity for lawmakers to exhibit restraint and maintain decorum in their conduct given the influential roles they occupy in a political democracy.

Singh was expelled in July 2024 following allegations that he made derogatory remarks against Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar during a heated exchange in the House. A motion for his expulsion was passed on February 13, 2024, a day after the ethics committee of the legislative council submitted its report recommending his removal. But the Supreme Court, in its ruling, emphasised that while Singh’s conduct was “abhorrent” and “unbecoming of a legislator,” the punishment imposed on him was excessive and warranted judicial intervention.

Expressing happiness over the verdict, Sunil Kumar Singh said, “Satyameva Jayate! Finally, justice has won. This verdict would increase people’s faith in judicial system of the country. This would prove a milestone in preventing democracy and the Constitution.”

JD(U) senior leader and parliamentary affairs minister Vijay Kumar Chaudhary said that according to the facts that have come to light, the Supreme Court has upheld the charges against him. “He has been given relief from the date of judgment by reducing the punishment only because it was too much. Also, the court has considered the last seven months when his membership was disqualified as punishment for his fault,” he said.

“The court has clarified that the member’s conduct in the House was indecent and disgusting. It has been emphasised that this decision does not free him from the charges against him, but it has also been said while warning him that he cannot behave like this in future. So it is up to one to understand what the court has called right and what wrong,” he added.

A bench comprising justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh directed the MLC’s immediate reinstatement while ruling that Singh’s period of expulsion would be treated as a period of suspension and that he would not be entitled to any monetary benefits for that duration.

“The period of expulsion already undergone by the petitioner shall be deemed as a period of his suspension from the House and will amount to be sufficient punishment for his misdemeanour… We may clarify that the indulgence extended by this Court in reducing the punishment imposed on the petitioner should not be misconstrued as condonation of his conduct. This Court has exercised its discretion squarely in the interests of proportionality and fairness,” said the bench.

It maintained that Singh’s expulsion from the House not only raises concerns about the violation of his fundamental rights but also impacts the legal rights of his constituents.

Additionally, the court quashed the Election Commission of India’s notification of holding a bye-election for Singh’s position, declaring that any action taken pursuant to it was null and void.

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankarnarayanan appeared for Singh, while senior advocate Ranjit Kumar represented the legislative council.

During the hearings, Kumar argued that Singh’s removal followed due process and the decision of the ethics committee was shielded by parliamentary privilege under Article 212(1) of the Constitution.

However, Singh’s counsel challenged the proportionality of the punishment, saying the MLC had merely reiterated public opinion about the Bihar CM being a “Palturam” (a term suggesting political flip-flopping), rather than making a personal attack.

The bench found merit in Singh’s argument that his punishment was “excessive”, and emphasised that expulsions should not be wielded arbitrarily or disproportionately.

“Proportionality is deeply intertwined with the principles of the Rule of Law and natural justice, as it guards against arbitrary or excessive actions. Consequently, it is interpreted as an implicit requirement in almost every legal provision, unless it is explicitly barred by the legislation itself,” the judgment read.

The court noted that while Singh’s actions were inappropriate, the Bihar legislative council should have exercised greater restraint in its disciplinary measures.

The court also clarified that there was no absolute bar on constitutional courts examining the proportionality of punishment imposed on a legislator. “The protection under Article 212(1) operates only with respect to the ‘Proceedings in the Legislature’ on the grounds of ‘Procedural Irregularities.’ It could not have been the intent of the lawmakers to circumscribe constitutional courts unconditionally from scrutinising the validity of the actions of the legislature, which may encroach upon the fundamental rights of the members and/or citizens,” the judgment stated.