Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh has set aside RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh's expulsion, stressing that punishment for legislative misconduct must be proportionate. It noted that disproportionate action weakens democracy and leaves constituents unrepresented. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council and Ors.(2025). 

What was the Background of Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council and Ors. Case? 

• The Petitioner, an MLC (Member of Legislative Council) from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) party, was elected to the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) on 29th June 2020 for a six-year term and served as Chief Whip of the RJD in the BLC. 
• The political landscape in Bihar changed when the coalition government comprising JDU (led by the incumbent Chief Minister), RJD, and INC dissolved in January 2024, with JDU subsequently forming a new alliance with BJP. 
• On 13th February 2024, during the 206th Session of the BLC, following the Governor's address and during the motion of thanks, the Petitioner and another MLC, Md. Sohaib, approached the well of the House and allegedly directed indecent slogans against the Chief Minister. 
• The Petitioner reportedly mocked the Chief Minister as "Paltu Ram," imitated his body language, made sarcastic remarks about his lack of electoral experience, referred to him as an "expert in manipulations," and likened him to a snake shedding its skin annually. 
• These actions allegedly obstructed House proceedings, prompting a complaint on 19th February 2024 against both MLCs by a JDU member of the BLC. 
• The Chairman of the BLC forwarded the complaint to the Ethics Committee for enquiry, directing both MLCs to attend proceedings on 03rd May 2024. 
• While Md. Sohaib appeared before the Committee, expressed regret, and assured future restraint, the Petitioner did not appear, citing various engagements including Lok Sabha election campaigning responsibilities. 
• The Petitioner was granted multiple exemptions from appearance on 3rd May 2024, 22nd May 2024, 31st May 2024, and 06th June 2024, despite requesting documentary evidence regarding the charges against him. 
• On 12th June 2024, the Petitioner finally appeared before the Ethics Committee and was provided with the charges but allegedly questioned the Committee's authority rather than addressing the allegations. 
• The Ethics Committee unilaterally rescheduled earlier the next proceedings from 19th June 2024 to 14th June 2024 without notifying the Petitioner, and on that date submitted its report recommending the Petitioner's expulsion from the BLC. 
• For Md. Sohaib, the Committee recommended a two-day suspension for the upcoming Session. 
• On 26th July 2024, the House accepted these recommendations by majority vote, expelling the Petitioner and suspending Md. Sohaib for two days. 
• The BLC Secretariat issued a notification on 26th July 2024 terminating the Petitioner's membership and declaring a vacancy. 
• During the pendency of the petition, on 30th December 2024, the Election Commission of India issued a Press Note declaring bye-elections for the Petitioner's former seat, with the process to be completed by 25th January 2025. 
• The Supreme Court, via order dated 15th January 2025, stayed the declaration of the bye-election results pending resolution of this case. 
• The key issue in this case: 
  • Whether the Supreme Court can review the Bihar Legislative Council's decision to expel RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh. 
  • It examines whether the Ethics Committee’s proceedings fall under judicial review despite Article 212(1) of the Constitution.  
  • Additionally, the Court must determine if the punishment was disproportionate and, if so, whether it has the authority to modify the penalty. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that while legislative bodies possess inherent privileges to discipline members, such powers are circumscribed by constitutional limitations and remain amenable to judicial scrutiny in appropriate cases. 
• The Court noted that disproportionate punishment against legislators constitutes a dual constitutional infringement by simultaneously depriving the member of participation in democratic processes and abrogating constituents' right to effective representation. 
• The Court observed that even temporary exclusion from legislative proceedings may substantially impair a member's capacity to discharge constitutional obligations during critical legislative deliberations. 
• The Court held that Constitutional Courts are duty-bound to review prima facie excessive or disproportionate punitive measures imposed by legislative bodies pursuant to the principles of constitutional justice. 
• The Court stated that disciplinary actions against legislators must be primarily reformative rather than retributive, with the predominant objective of maintaining parliamentary decorum. 
• The Court articulated a multi-faceted framework for evaluating proportionality of sanctions, encompassing obstruction caused, institutional dignity impaired, member's antecedent conduct, availability of less restrictive alternatives, and balancing of competing interests. 
• The Court concluded that legislative disciplinary actions must satisfy the tripartite test of justification, necessity, and equitable balance to preserve both institutional integrity and representative democratic principles. 

What are the Principles Laid Down by Supreme Court to Determine Proportionality of Punishment Imposed on Member of Legislature? 

• Disciplinary Purpose, Not Retribution: The Court states that punishment of legislators should primarily serve a disciplinary function rather than punitive objectives and maintain decorum rather than serve as retribution, focusing on creating an environment for constructive debate. 
• Obstruction Assessment: Courts must consider the degree to which the member obstructed House proceedings, recognizing that different levels of disruption warrant correspondingly different disciplinary measures. 
• Institutional Dignity and Conduct Pattern: The impact on the House's reputation must be evaluated alongside the member's previous behavior patterns and their subsequent actions, including expressions of remorse and cooperation with institutional mechanisms. 
• Minimal Necessary Restriction: Any disciplinary action should represent the least restrictive measure capable of addressing misconduct, ensuring that democratic representation isn't unduly compromised. 
• Contextual Evaluation: Courts should distinguish between deliberately inappropriate expressions and those influenced by regional dialect or cultural context, acknowledging that intent and background matter in assessing severity. 
• Rational Connection to Purpose: The punishment must be suitable for achieving its stated disciplinary objective rather than being punitive for its own sake. 
• Balancing Stakeholder Interests: Finally, disciplinary decisions must balance multiple competing interests—the rights of the electorate to representation, the member's individual rights, and the legislature's need to maintain order and dignity.

What is Article 212 of Indian Constitution?

• Article 212 establishes immunity for legislative proceedings from judicial scrutiny on grounds of procedural irregularities. 
• Clause (1) prohibits courts from questioning the validity of state legislative proceedings based on alleged procedural irregularities. 
• Clause (2) provides immunity from judicial oversight to legislative officers or members vested with powers for regulating procedure, conducting business, or maintaining order within the legislature. 
• This provision implements the constitutional principle of separation of powers by establishing a protective shield around internal legislative functioning. 
• The Article aims to preserve legislative independence while ensuring that legislative bodies can effectively discharge their constitutional duties without undue judicial interference. 
• However, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, this immunity is not absolute and does not preclude judicial review is permitted only in cases of substantive constitutional violation. 

What is an Ethics Committee? 

• The Ethics Committee is a parliamentary oversight body that operates year-round to maintain the integrity and dignity of Parliament. 
• It was first established in the Rajya Sabha in 1997, followed by the Lok Sabha in 2000, with the latter becoming permanent in 2015. 
• The Ethics Committee originated from a resolution at the Presiding Officers Conference in New Delhi in October 1996. 
• The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee consists of up to fifteen members nominated by the Speaker for a term not exceeding one year. 
• The Ethics Committee examines complaints about unethical conduct by members and recommends appropriate actions. 
• It is responsible for developing and refining a Code of Conduct for members of Parliament. 
• Any individual can file a complaint about unethical conduct, though non-MPs must have their complaints forwarded by an MP. 
• The Ethics Committee differs from the Privileges Committee in that it focuses exclusively on misconduct involving MPs, while more serious allegations typically go to the Privileges Committee. 
• In 2005, the Ethics Committee reviewed a significant "Cash-for-Query" case involving MPs who allegedly accepted money to ask questions in Parliament.