No place for aggression, indecency in Parliament or Assembly: SC
Lays down parameters over punishment to members by legislature
New Delhi: There is no place for aggression and indecency in the proceedings of Parliament or the legislature and members are expected to show complete respect and deference towards each other, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday.
The top court said the right to speak inside the House cannot be harnessed as a tool to insult, humiliate and defame a fellow member, ministers and most importantly, the chair itself.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh deprecated the conduct of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MLC Sunil Kumar Singh in Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) for sloganeering against Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, but set aside his expulsion from the House while terming it as harsh and excessive.
“It needs no emphasis that there is no place for aggression and indecency in the proceedings of Parliament or the Legislature. Members are expected to show complete respect and deference towards each other. This expectation is not merely a matter of tradition or formality; it is essential for the effective functioning of democratic processes,” the bench said.
The top court said this ensures that debates and discussions are productive, focused on the issues at hand, and conducted in a manner that upholds the dignity of the institution.
“The right to speak inside the House cannot be harnessed as a tool to insult, humiliate or defame a fellow member, Ministers and most importantly, the Chair itself,” it said.
While dealing with the aspect of the role of courts in scrutinising the action of the House, the bench said constitutional courts assume a crucial role in ensuring that the actions imposing punishments on members are proportionate and just.
“There is no gainsaid that imposing a disproportionate punishment not only undermines democratic values by depriving the member of participating in the proceedings of the House but also affects the electorates of the constituency who remain unrepresented,” it said, adding that in India’s representative democracy, the main function of a legislator is to act as a reflection of the people’s will.
Justice Surya Kant, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench, said instead of being a free agent to follow their conviction, the legislators are agents of the electorates and thus obligated to reflect the opinions and values of the people they represent.
“The removal of a member from the House therefore is a significant issue for both the member and the constituency they represent. The democratic process relies on the active participation of all members, and even brief absences can impede a member’s ability to contribute to critical legislative discussions and decisions,” the bench said.
It added that the absence of members from the House can have far-reaching implications on the legislative outcomes and the representation of their constituency’s interests.
“We clarify that while representation of the constituency is not the sole factor in determining the punishment to be imposed on a member, it nonetheless remains an important aspect that merits due consideration,” the bench said.
Emphasising that the absence of a duly elected representative disrupts the democratic process and undermines the voice of the electorate, the bench said in such a situation, if the punishment inflicted upon the member concerned appears to be prima facie harsh and disproportionate, Constitutional courts owe a duty to undo such gross injustice and review the proportionality of such disqualifications or expulsions.
“It is pertinent to add that the said responsibility involves a delicate balance where courts must act decisively to strike down excessively harsh actions that threaten our democratic fabric while simultaneously exercising restraint to avoid encroaching upon the legislative domain.
“We reiterate 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,” the bench underscored.
It held that there is no absolute bar on the Constitutional courts to examine the proportionality of the punishment imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by the House.
“By focusing on the proportionality of punishment, courts must ensure that justice aligns with constitutional values and societal norms, thereby upholding the integrity of the democratic process,” the bench said.
On July 26, 2024, Singh was expelled from the Bihar Legislative Council for his unruly behaviour in the House.
Singh, considered close to RJD supremo Lalu Prasad and his family, was charged with sloganeering against the chief minister on February 13, 2024, during a heated exchange in the House.
In 2024, the motion for Singh’s expulsion was passed by voice vote, a day after the ethics committee submitted its report to acting chairman Awadhesh Narain Singh.
Singh was also charged with “insulting the chief minister by mimicking his body language” and questioning the competence of the members of the ethics committee after appearing before it.
The apex court also laid down guidelines for the consideration of courts when it comes to action taken by the legislature against its members.
It said the determination of what constituted a disproportionate measure was inherently complex and subjective and such an assessment required a nuanced scrutiny of the specific circumstances surrounding each case.
A one-size-fits-all definition, the bench said, was impractical while adjudicating proportionality and the courts must exercise their discretion in a prudent and judicious manner.
The top court, therefore, laid down the parameters in a case where it deprecated the conduct of RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh in Bihar legislative council (BLC) for sloganeering against Chief Minister Nitish Kumar but set aside his expulsion from the House while terming it as harsh and excessive.
The bench said the court while examining the disproportionate measure should consider the conduct of members in the house.
The parameters include degree of obstruction caused by the member in the proceedings of the house, and whether the behaviour of the member brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire house.
Other parameters outlined by the bench include the previous conduct of the erring member; the subsequent conduct of the erring member — expressing remorse, cooperation with the institutional scrutiny mechanism — and availability of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the delinquent member.
The bench said courts should also consider whether crude expressions uttered were deliberate and motivated or a mere outcome of language largely influenced by the local dialect and whether the measure adopted was suitable for furthering the desired purpose aside from balancing the interest of society, particularly the electorates, with those of the erring members.
“A scrutiny of the punishment given to the members by the House on the above mentioned framework will ensure that the legislative actions are justified, necessary, and balanced, protecting both the integrity of the legislative body and the rights of its members, as well as the larger societal objective,” the bench said.
It was imperative, the court said, such legislative action remained mindful of the fundamental principle that the purpose of imposing punishment was not to serve as a tool for retribution but uphold and enforce discipline within the house.
“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, ensuring that it does not unduly stifle democratic participation or undermine the representative nature of the institution,” the court added.
