Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement

Punishment Must Be Proportionate, Even in Legislative Discipline - In a significant ruling Today, the Supreme Court of India overturned the expulsion of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh from the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC), declaring it "highly excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct committed by him." The court, while acknowledging the petitioner’s "abhorrent and unbecoming" conduct, emphasized that the House must exercise its disciplinary power with "magnanimity and institutional maturity" rather than resorting to extreme measures like expulsion.

The case originated from a report submitted by the Ethics Committee of the BLC on June 14, 2024, recommending Dr. Singh’s expulsion due to his alleged use of derogatory expressions against the Chief Minister during a legislative session. A consequential notification issued on July 26, 2024, by the BLC Secretariat formally relieved him of his membership. Aggrieved by the decision, Dr. Singh approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging both the Ethics Committee’s report and the notification on the grounds of mala fide intent and procedural irregularities.

Legislative Punishment Not Above Judicial Scrutiny, Holds Supreme Court

The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 212(1) of the Constitution, which bars judicial interference in legislative proceedings based on procedural irregularities. The Supreme Court, however, decisively rejected this argument, holding that "the protection under Article 212(1) operates only with respect to ‘Proceedings in the Legislature’ on the grounds of ‘Procedural Irregularities’ and does not shield legislative decisions from judicial review when they violate fundamental rights."

The court drew a crucial distinction between "Proceedings in the Legislature" and a "Legislative Decision," noting that while the former enjoys certain immunities, the latter remains subject to constitutional scrutiny. "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 judgment declared.

"Expulsion is the Gravest Measure and Should Be Used Sparingly" - Supreme Court

Weighing the proportionality of the punishment, the court reiterated that expulsion from the legislature is "a grave measure and normally should not be taken." Citing Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha Speaker (2007), the bench noted that such a severe penalty should only be imposed in "exceptional circumstances" and not as a routine disciplinary action. The ruling emphasized that an elected representative's expulsion not only affects the individual but also deprives the electorate of representation, disrupting the democratic process.

The court further examined the disparity in the punishment meted out to Dr. Singh compared to another MLC, Md. Sohaib, who was involved in the same incident but was only suspended for two days. It observed that while Sohaib cooperated with the Ethics Committee and expressed regret, Dr. Singh, in contrast, adopted an "evasive and high-handed" approach, repeatedly seeking exemptions from the inquiry. However, the Supreme Court clarified that "even defiant conduct does not justify an expulsion that pricks the conscience of justice and fairness."

"Legislative Discipline Must Adhere to the Doctrine of Proportionality"

The ruling extensively discussed the doctrine of proportionality, emphasizing that any disciplinary action must be reasonable, justified, and not excessively harsh. "Punishment must not be imposed as a tool for retribution but rather as a means to uphold and enforce discipline within the House," the bench observed.

The court also set forth guiding principles for evaluating legislative punishments, including:

• The degree of obstruction caused in legislative proceedings

• Whether the misconduct brought disrepute to the dignity of the House

• The past conduct of the erring member

• The availability of lesser restrictive measures for discipline

• The impact on the electorate due to prolonged absence of representation

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found Dr. Singh’s expulsion to be grossly disproportionate, holding that "a more measured and balanced approach would have sufficed to address the misconduct while upholding the dignity and decorum of the House."

Expulsion Overturned, Supreme Court Orders Immediate Reinstatement

Considering that Dr. Singh had already undergone nearly seven months of expulsion and missed an entire legislative session, the court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to modify the punishment. "Balancing the competing considerations, we hold that the period of expulsion already undergone by the Petitioner is deemed to be considered as a period of his suspension and constitutes sufficient punishment for the misconduct displayed by him," the court ruled.

Consequently, the Ethics Committee’s report and the BLC Secretariat’s notification were set aside "only to the extent of the nature of punishment imposed," and Dr. Singh was ordered to be reinstated immediately as an MLC. However, he was denied any remuneration or monetary benefits for the period of expulsion, although his tenure would be considered uninterrupted for post-tenure benefits.

Additionally, the court quashed the Election Commission’s press note dated December 30, 2024, which had declared a bye-election for Dr. Singh’s vacated seat, rendering any action taken under it null and void.

"Reinstatement Does Not Condone Misconduct" – Supreme Court’s Stern Warning

While granting relief to Dr. Singh, the Supreme Court made it unequivocally clear that its ruling should not be interpreted as condoning his behavior. The judgment warned that "any deviation from expected conduct upon reinstatement will not be viewed lightly," leaving it to the Ethics Committee an the BLC Chairperson to take further disciplinary action if required.

This landmark ruling reinforces the principle that legislative discipline must be exercised within constitutional bounds and that even legislative bodies must adhere to fundamental principles of fairness and proportionality when taking punitive actions against their members.

Date of Decision: February 25, 2025