Limit of power: On suspension of Maharashtra MLAs

In ruling that one year suspension was imposed on 12 BJP MLAs by Maharashtra Assembly last year illegal and irrationalThe Supreme Court has set limits on the legislature’s power to deal with disorderly conduct in the House. It laid down an important principle that the effect of a disciplinary action cannot extend beyond the session in which the cause arose. Citing examples of decisions of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, the Court has sought to readjust the power of the House to suspend a member as compulsively defensive or ‘self-protective’ so that disorderly conduct may result in its should not affect the proceedings, but it should not assume a punitive character. Therefore, suspension beyond the duration of the session was illegal. This was considered irrational as the need to exercise power was limited to the restoration of order in the House; Logically, it was not necessary for the session after the day, or in the case of repeated disorderly conduct, to complete the assigned task. It has termed the one-year suspension as a punitive action worse than expulsion. Its logic is that if a member is expelled by a resolution of the House, the Election Commission is bound to hold a by-election within six months and the member can seek re-election. Conversely, a year-long suspension would mean the constituency is not represented, while no vacancy will be filled through a by-election.

The state government vehemently argued that there was no limit to the action to be taken by the House to maintain order and that the court could not check the proportionality of the action. Rule 53 of the Assembly allowed the Speaker to take a graded approach to disorderly conduct; Nominating the members after which they must withdraw from the House for the whole day, and if the conduct is repeated, for the rest of the session. The government, however, insisted that the suspension was imposed under the inherent power of the assembly to ensure orderly functioning. Nevertheless, the court ruled, in the absence of a rule enabling such power, the House had to adopt a graded approach and that the same-session limit could not be violated. Referring to the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution on the judiciary examining the regularity of the procedure adopted by the House, the three-judge Bench ruled that the present action was illegal and irrational and not merely an irregularity of procedure. The ruling is another reminder for legislative bodies that their functioning is subject to constitutional standards. In an era when the government side accuses the opposition of obstructing, and the opposition alleges it is being silenced, it is a matter of satisfaction that the higher judiciary is concerned with the limits of power exercised by the majority in the legislature. Struggles with questions.