Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioners being members of the 7th Delhi Legislative Assembly challenging the motion passed in the 5th Session of the 7th Delhi Legislative Assembly on 16-02-2024 whereby the petitioners had been suspended from the sittings of the House and the issue was referred to the Committee of Privileges of the Legislative Assembly. Subramonium Prasad, J., held that the decision of the House to send the issue before the Committee of Privileges without the Speaker independently applying his mind as postulated under Rule 70 of Chapter XI and the decision of the House to suspend the Petitioners till the Committee of Privileges takes a decision both are in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Fifth Schedule and Chapter XI. The Court further permitted the petitioners to rejoin the House, since the petitioners have already undergone the suspension of 14 sittings.
The suspension of the petitioners stemmed from their alleged misconduct during the address of the Lieutenant Governor of NCT Delhi. The petitioners, along with other members, were accused of interrupting the Lieutenant Governor’s speech, which led to disruptions in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. Consequently, on 16-02-2024, a motion was moved against the petitioners by Chief Whip of AAP, and the House decided to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. The petitioners were suspended until the Committee submitted its findings on the alleged breach of privilege and contempt. The petitioners challenged their suspension before the court, arguing that the decision of the House violated procedural fairness and the prescribed rules of the Legislative Assembly. They contended that the suspension for an indefinite period until the Committee of Privileges submitted its findings was not provided for in the legislative rules and amounted to a violation of their rights as members of the Assembly.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that their suspension was not in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in the Fifth Schedule and Chapter XI of the Legislative Assembly’s Rules. He emphasized that the prescribed punishments under Clause 44 of the Fifth Schedule did not include suspension for an indefinite period. Furthermore, he asserted that the decision to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges was not made independently by the Speaker, as required by Rule 70 of Chapter XI. Counsel for the respondents, representing the Legislative Assembly, defended the suspension, arguing that it was a necessary measure to maintain discipline and uphold the dignity of the House. He contended that the House could act against members for misconduct, and the decision to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges was within its prerogative.
The Court conducted a meticulous analysis of the constitutional provisions, legislative rules, and judicial precedents relevant to the case. It examined the powers and functions of the Speaker, the procedures for dealing with breaches of privilege and contempt, and the principles of parliamentary privilege and legislative autonomy. The Court observed that the suspension of the petitioners for an indefinite period until the Committee of Privileges submitted its findings exceeded the prescribed punishments under the legislative rules. It noted that Rule 70 of Chapter XI mandated the Speaker to independently decide whether to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, which was not done in this case. Additionally, the Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to the rule of law in parliamentary proceedings.
Thus, the Court held that the suspension of the petitioners was unsustainable as it violated the prescribed procedures under the Fifth Schedule and Chapter XI of the Legislative Assembly’s Rules. It ruled that the petitioners should be permitted to re-join the House forthwith, thereby overturning their suspension.
[Ajay Kumar Mahawar v. Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1612, decided on 06-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Mr. Vijay Kumar Joshi, Mr. Himanshu Bidhuri and Ms. Kangan Roda, Ms. Nikita Sethi, Advocates for P-1.
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chetanya Puri, Ms. Priyanka Garg and Mr. Nikhil Jaiswal, Advocates for P-2.
Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kamal Digpaul, Ms. Soumava Karmakar and Mr. Rudra Paliwal, Advocates P-3.
