Supreme Court: No Absolute Bar On Constitutional Courts To Examine Proportionality Of Punishment Imposed On Member Of Legislative Council
The Supreme Court was deciding a Writ Petition challenging the Report of the Ethics Committee of the Bihar Legislative Council, recommending RJD leader's expulsion as a Member of Legislative Council (MLC).
The Supreme Court while setting aside the expulsion of RJD (Rashtriya Janata Dal) leader Sunil Kumar Singh from the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC), 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.
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed by Singh, challenging the Report submitted by the Ethics Committee of the BLC, recommending his expulsion as a Member of Legislative Council (MLC). The consequential notification relieving him from the membership of BLC issued by the Secretariat was also assailed.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed, “…. we hold 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 reiterated that the 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.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankarnarayanan appeared for the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar and AOR Ankit Agarwal appeared for the Respondents. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appeared for the Intervener.
Case Background
The controversy arose from the allegations of unparliamentary conduct by the Petitioner including the use of derogatory expressions in his capacity as an MLC within the House of the BLC. This conduct of the Petitioner prompted the initiation of proceedings against him by the Ethics Committee. The allegations were found to be substantiated leading the Ethics Committee to recommend the Petitioner’s expulsion from the BLC. Subsequently, a resolution to that effect was passed by a majority of the members of BLC formalising the decision to expel and relieve the Petitioner.
The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “We cannot be ignorant that the grounds raised before us traverse beyond mere procedural irregularity and challenge the Petitioner’s expulsion on the footing of proportionality. Needless to say, the imposed punishment has a significant impact on the Petitioner’s Fundamental Rights and a chilling effect on the representative democratic framework of our society, issues that we have dealt with in greater detail, in the later parts of this judgement.”
Whether the proceedings of the Ethics Committee are amenable to judicial review?
The Court said that the Respondent’s argument qua maintainability of the Writ Petition must fail. It, therefore, held that the action of the Ethics Committee neither forms part of the ‘Proceedings of the Legislature’ nor is it tantamount to a ‘Legislative Decision’.
“Accordingly, entertaining the instant petition would not fall foul of the restrictions imposed by Article 212 (1) of the Constitution”, it added.
Can the Courts examine the proportionality of punishment imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by the House?
The Court observed, “… when contemplating the decision of expulsion of a Legal or Public Representative such as the Petitioner, inflicting punishment beyond the necessary period may suffer from the vice of being irrational and arbitrariness. Such action then becomes prone to challenge on the grounds of being illegal and unconstitutional.”
The Court further remarked that 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”, it also elucidated.
The Court was of the view that the absence of a duly elected representative disrupts the democratic process and undermines the voice of the electorate and 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 aforementioned 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”, it added.
The Court outlined a few guiding principles for Courts to consider while scrutinising the proportionality of actions taken by the House against its member(s) and clarified that these parameters are not exhaustive, as considerations will inevitably vary from case to case. Such parameters included the following –
(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.
Conclusion
The Court reiterated that the principle of proportionality is a cornerstone of our judicial system, and it mandates that the severity of the punishment must correspond to the gravity of the offence. It, therefore, held that the punishment meted out to the Petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the offence he committed.
“Having said that, it is equally important to underscore that this Court is not devoid of the power to intervene in exceptional circumstances. In order to curtail perpetuating illegality, abridge prolonged litigation, prevent unnecessary hardship to the parties involved and to do complete justice, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, is vested with the authority to substitute the punishment where the facts and circumstances so warrant”, it observed.
The Court remarked that when the established remedies fall short of addressing exceptional circumstances or fail to meet the demands of justice, the Supreme Court, as the final arbiter, must invoke its Constitutional powers to bridge the gap and ensure a just, fair, and equitable resolution.
“We may clarify that the indulgence extended by this Court in reducing the punishment imposed on the Petitioner should not be misconstrued as condonation of his conduct. This Court has exercised its discretion squarely in the interests of proportionality and fairness. Consequently, the Petitioner is expected to uphold the dignity of the House and adhere to the standards of discipline befitting its members. Henceforth, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to conduct himself with decorum and responsibility in legislative proceedings. Any deviation from this expectation or recurrence of misconduct will not be viewed lightly, and the concerned authority shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Writ Petition, set aside the Ethics Committee’s Report and BLC’s notification to the extent of the nature of punishment imposed, and directed the Petitioner to be reinstated as the Member of BLC.
Cause Title- Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 264)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Abhishek Singhvi, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, AOR Priyansha Sharma, Advocates Yash Johri, Shristi Sinha, Vishal Sinha, and Pradyut Kashyap.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar, Meenakshi Arora, AORs Ankit Agarwal, Sushil Kumar Singh, Chandan Kumar, Advocates Navin Kumar Jha, Aditya Prakash Sahay, Akash Dikshit, Divyansh Mishra, Chandratanay Chaube, Viyushti Rawat, and Ashish Shukla.
