(A) Constitution of India , Art.212— Expulsion of MLC – Proceedings before Ethics Committee – Writ petition against – Maintainability – Article 212 (1) of the Constitution of India bars any enquiry regarding any proceeding in the Legislature on the grounds of alleged irregularity of procedure – Applying principle of ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius’, Court concluded that prohibition operates only with respect to scrutiny of ‘Proceedings in the Legislature’ on touchstone of ‘Irregularity of Procedure’ but does not oust power of judicial review of decisions of Legislature, on grounds of illegality or unconstitutionality – Action of Ethics Committee neither formed part of ‘Proceedings of the Legislature’ nor was it tantamount to a ‘Legislative Decision’ – Expulsion of MLC was purely administrative in nature, aimed at enforcing discipline and ethical standards amongst members of House – Writ petition was maintainable.
Interpretation of Statutes – Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius(Paras1517202388(a))
(B) Constitution of India , Art.32, Art.212— Members of legislature – Proportionality of punishment imposed on – Scrutiny by Constitutional Courts – Guiding principles – Laid down.
Following guiding principles were outlined for courts to consider while scrutinising the proportionality of actions taken by the House against its member(s) which were stated to be not exhaustive but only indicative :
(a) Degree of obstruction caused by the member in the proceedings of the House;
(b) Whether the behaviour of the member has brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire House;
(c) The previous conduct of the erring member;
(d) The subsequent conduct of the erring member, such as expressing remorse, cooperation with the institutional scrutiny mechanism;
(e) Availability of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the delinquent member;
(f) Whether crude expressions uttered are deliberate and motivated or a mere outcome of language largely influenced by the local dialect;
(g) Whether the measure adopted is suitable for furthering the desired purpose; and
(h) Balancing the interest of society, particularly the electorates, with those of the erring members.
(C) Constitution of India , Art.32, Art.142— Members of legislature – Punishment imposed on – Proportionality of – Powers of Constitutional Courts – There is no absolute bar on Constitutional Courts to examine proportionality of punishment imposed on a Member while reviewing validity of action taken by House – In order to curtail perpetuating illegality, abridge prolonged litigation, prevent unnecessary hardship to parties involved and to do complete justice, Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Art.142, is also vested with authority to substitute punishment where facts and circumstances so warrant.
Held, 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.
Imposing a disproportionate punishment not only undermines democratic values by depriving the member from participating in the proceedings of the House but also affects the electorates of the constituency who remain unrepresented. It is accurately stated that in our representative democracy, the main function of a legislator is to act as a reflection of the people’s will. That is to say, instead of being a free agent to follow their conviction, the legislator is an agent of the electorates and thus obligated to reflect the opinions and values of the people they represent.
Absence of a duly elected representative disrupts the democratic process and undermines the voice of the electorate. 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.
However, 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.
In order to curtail perpetuating illegality, abridge prolonged litigation, prevent unnecessary hardship to the parties involved and to do complete justice, Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, is also vested with authority to substitute punishment where facts and circumstances so warrant.
(D) Constitution of India , Art.212, Art.208— Bihar Vidhan Parishad – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business , Chap.36 R.10— Expulsion of MLC – Proportionality of punishment – Material on record showed that demeanour of MLC in House was abhorrent and unbecoming of a member of Legislature – MLC’s subsequent evasive and high-handed demeanour before Ethics Committee was even more egregious – Primary purpose of imposing penalties is to discipline members and ensure smooth and orderly functioning of House – A more measured and balanced approach would have sufficed to address the misconduct while upholding dignity, decorum of House – Punishment was excessive and disproportionate – Balancing the competing considerations, period of expulsion already undergone was deemed to be considered as period of his suspension which would constitute sufficient punishment for the misconduct displayed by him
[ad_1]
Source link