SC defines limits of legislative penalties, cites proportionality

When it set aside the expulsion of Bihar Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) legislator Sunil Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court on Tuesday also laid down a detailed framework to assess the proportionality of punitive action taken by legislatures against lawmakers, emphasising that punishment must be just and necessary because “the absence of an elected representative disrupts the democratic process and undermines the voice of the electorate”.

A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh underscored that while legislatures have the authority to discipline members, expulsions and severe penalties should be imposed only in “exceptional” cases and must withstand judicial scrutiny. It said that courts must consider factors such as the degree of obstruction caused, whether the member’s actions discredited the dignity of the House, their past and subsequent conduct and the impact on the electorate before upholding severe punitive measures.

In this case, Singh was expelled for calling Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar, whose Janata Dal (United) has a history of switching between the Congress-RJD and BJP-led alliances “Palturam” (a coinage that means someone who keeps flipping).

The apex court held that constitutional courts have a duty to review legislative actions if they appear “prima facie harsh and disproportionate”. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankarnarayanan appeared for Singh, while senior advocate Ranjit Kumar represented the legislative council.

“Constitutional courts assume a crucial role in ensuring that the actions imposing punishments on members are proportionate and just. This is achieved through a structured approach that balances legislative authority with judicial oversight,” held the bench, stressing that such oversight ensures that democratic values are upheld and prevents the electorate from being unfairly deprived of their chosen representative.

“The expulsion of a member is a grave measure and normally, it should not be taken,” said the court, citing its previous ruling in Raja Ram Pal vs the Hon’ble Speaker of Lok Sabha (2007). It added that severe punitive measures affect not only the member but also the democratic process, as their absence can hinder parliamentary discussions and legislative decision-making.

The court also underscored that lesser restrictive measures should always be considered before resorting to severe punitive actions. Additionally, the court highlighted that it is essential to assess whether the language used by a member was a deliberate act or influenced by local dialect and whether the measure adopted is suitable for achieving its intended purpose. The balancing of societal interests, particularly those of the electorate, with the disciplinary requirements of the legislature was also identified as a crucial factor, it added.

The court clarified that these parameters are not exhaustive but serve as an indicative framework for courts to ensure that legislative actions are proportionate and aligned with constitutional values. “Punishment must not serve as a tool for retribution but rather to uphold and enforce discipline within the House,” said the bench.

It further elaborated that “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”.

By setting out clear parameters for evaluating punitive measures, the judgment lays down a key precedent in maintaining the delicate equilibrium between legislative independence and judicial oversight.

Expounding on the role of judicial scrutiny, the ruling held that constitutional courts must strike a delicate balance when intervening in legislative matters. While courts must act decisively to strike down excessively harsh actions that threaten democratic values, they must also exercise restraint to avoid encroaching upon the legislative domain. The bench categorically stated that “courts must reflect a certain degree of deference to the legislative will and wisdom, intervening only when the action prescribed is so disproportionate that it shocks the intrinsic sense of justice.”

Simultaneously, the court highlighted the need for decorum, noting that aggression and indecency have no place in parliamentary proceedings. “The right to speak inside the House cannot be harnessed as a tool to insult, humiliate, or defame a fellow member, ministers, or the Chair itself,” said the court, adding that debates should remain focussed on issues and be conducted with mutual respect to preserve the dignity of the institution.