Constitution of India – Art.212(1) – Whether the instant Writ Petition is maintainable in view of Art.212(1) of the Constitution of India and whether the proceedings of the Ethics Committee are amenable to judicial review:
Held: The protection u/Art.212(1) operates only with respect to the ‘Proceedings in the Legislature’ on the grounds of ‘Procedural Irregularities’ – It could not have been the intent of the lawmakers to circumscribe Constitutional Courts unconditionally from scrutinising the validity of the actions of the Legislature, which may encroach upon the Fundamental Rights of the members and/or citizens – The ‘Proceedings in the Legislature’ comprise the formal steps, debates, and motions undertaken to facilitate deliberations within the House – Art. 212(1) of the Constitution provides immunity for the manner of such proceedings, and hence, Constitutional Courts would exercise restraint when such proceedings are called into question on the grounds of procedural irregularity – A ‘Legislative Decision’, on the other hand, is the culmination of the legislative procedure—the formal expression of the will of the House on a given matter – These decisions of the Legislature, though emanating from a coordinate branch of Government, are not immune from scrutiny by Constitutional Courts – In the instant case, the Impugned Report recommending the expulsion of the Petitioner was made by the Ethics Committee in the discharge of its administrative functions – The present action of the Ethics Committee is purely administrative in nature, aimed at enforcing discipline and ethical standards amongst the members of the House – It is well established that administrative actions, even when undertaken by legislative bodies or their committees, are subject to judicial review where they affect the rights and interests of individuals – In this context, the present action resulting in civil consequences for the Petitioner, cannot be immune from judicial review under the pretext of legislative privilege. [Paras 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21]
Punishment – Proportionality of punishment – Can the Courts examine the proportionality of punishment imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by the House:
Held: The doctrine of proportionality is fundamentally embedded in the concept of fairness in action across domestic, foreign, and international legal systems – This principle ensures that measures taken are appropriate, necessary, and balanced in relation to the objectives they seek to achieve – 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 – At this point, it must be added that the determination of what constitutes a disproportionate measure is inherently complex and context-dependent – Such assessment requires a nuanced scrutiny of the specific circumstances surrounding each case – This means that a one-size-fits-all definition is impractical while adjudicating proportionality and the courts must exercise their discretion in a prudent and judicious manner. [Paras 54, 62, 63] Punishment – Proportionality of punishment – Guiding principles for courts to consider while scrutinising the proportionality of actions taken by the House against its member(s): Held: These parameters are not exhaustive, as considerations will inevitably vary from case to case – An indicative list of such parameters includes:(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. [Para 64] Punishment – Expulsion – Proportionality of Petitioner’s Expulsion – Was the Petitioner’s expulsion proportionate to the offence alleged against him, and whether it merits any interference:
Held: The punishment of expulsion imposed on the Petitioner is harsh and disproportionate – While the petitioner’s conduct in the house was abhorrent and his subsequent demeanour before the ethics committee was evasive and high-handed, the house ought to exercise magnanimity as custodian of constitutional values – The punishment of expulsion was highly excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct – Disproportionate punishments are violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in Arts.14 and
21 of the constitution – A more measured and balanced approach would have sufficed to address the misconduct while upholding the dignity and decorum of the House. [Paras 68-71, 75-78] Constitution of India – Art.142 – Quantum of Punishment – Power of Supreme Court u/Art.142:
Held: In ordinary course, when a court concludes that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it does not generally substitute its own assessment of the appropriate penalty – Instead, the established judicial approach is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration – In exercise of its powers u/Art.142 of the constitution, this court is vested with the authority to substitute the punishment where the facts and circumstances so warrant – The expulsion of the Petitioner is disproportionate and undoubtedly infringes his Fundamental Rights guaranteed u/Art.14 of the Constitution – Furthermore, the expulsion also has a direct impact on a vast number of stakeholders, particularly the electorates he represents – The Petitioner has already undergone almost 7 months of expulsion – If this matter is now remanded to the Ethics Committee for reconsideration of the appropriate punishment, the ensuing process is likely to be protracted, which might deprive the Petitioner in participating in the ensuing Sessions – Balancing the competing considerations, the period of expulsion already undergone by the Petitioner is deemed to be considered as a period of his suspension; and in view of this Court, constitutes sufficient punishment for the misconduct displayed by him – As a segue thereto, the Petitioner is directed to be reinstated as member of the BLC with immediate effect. [Paras 79-84, 86]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Ankit Gyan, Editor). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.