Suspension of MLAs | 15 Jan 2022

Why in News

Recently, 12 MLAs from the Maharashtra legislative assembly have gone to the Supreme Court against their year-long suspension from the Assembly.

• The Supreme Court has observed that the suspension for a full year is prima facie unconstitutional and created a constitutional void for these constituencies.

Key Points

• About the Suspension of MLAs:
  • The MLAs were suspended for misbehaviour in the Assembly pertaining to disclosure of data regarding OBCs.
  • The challenge to suspension relies mainly on grounds of denial of the principles of natural justice, and of violation of laid-down procedure.
    • The 12 MLAs have said they were not given an opportunity to present their case, and that the suspension violated their fundamental right to equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • Rule 53 of Maharashtra Assembly: It states that the “Speaker may direct any member who refuses to obey his decision, or whose conduct is, in his opinion, grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Assembly”.
    • The member must “absent himself during the remainder of the day’s meeting”.
    • Should any member be ordered to withdraw for a second time in the same session, the Speaker may direct the member to absent himself “for any period not longer than the remainder of the Session”.
• Arguments by Maharashtra Assembly:
  • Article 212: The House had acted within its legislative competence, under Article 212, and courts do not have jurisdiction to inquire into the proceedings of the legislature.
    • Article 212 (1) states that “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure”.
  • Article 194: The state has also referred to Article 194 on the powers and privileges of the House, and argued that any member who transgresses these privileges can be suspended through the inherent powers of the House.
    • It has denied that the power to suspend a member can be exercised only through Rule 53 of the Assembly.
• Arguments By the Supreme Court:
  • Violation of Basic Structure of the Constitution: The basic structure of the Constitution would be hit if the constituencies of the suspended MLAs remained unrepresented in the Assembly for a full year.
  • Constitutional Requirement: The bench referred to Article 190 (4) of the Constitution, which says, “If for a period of sixty days a member of a House of the Legislature of a State is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant.”
  • Statutory Requirement: Under Section 151 (A) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, “a bye-election for filling any vacancy shall be held within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy”.
    • This means that barring exceptions specified under this section, no constituency can remain without a representative for more than six months.
  • Punishing Whole Constituency: The Supreme Court said that the one-year suspension was prima facie unconstitutional as it went beyond the six-month limit, and amounted to “not punishing the member but punishing the constituency as a whole”.
  • Question of Supreme Court Intervention: The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the question of whether the judiciary can intervene in the proceedings of the House.
    • Constitutional experts, however, say that the court has clarified in previous rulings that the judiciary can intervene in case of an unconstitutional act done by the House.

Source: IE