SC Reverses Expulsion of Sunil Kumar Singh from Bihar Legislative Council, Emphasizes Proportionality and Fairness in Legislative Disciplinary Actions

The Supreme Court of India has set out important guidelines to determine the proportionality of punishment for members of the legislature found guilty of misconduct. This ruling comes after the Bihar Legislative Council expelled RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh for making derogatory remarks against Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. The Supreme Court, while overturning the expulsion, emphasized the importance of ensuring fairness and balance when disciplining elected representatives. The Court stressed that disproportionate punishments not only undermine democratic values but also harm the interests of the electorate who elect their representatives.

Key Points of the Supreme Court’s Ruling:

• Proportionality of Punishment:
  • The Court emphasized that punishments imposed on a member of the legislature must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. “There is no gainsaid 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.”
• Impact of Expulsion:
  • The removal of a member from the legislature is a serious matter. It affects both the individual member and their constituency, as the expelled member cannot participate in crucial legislative decisions. The Court noted that brief absences can impede a member's ability to contribute effectively. “The removal of a member from the House therefore is a significant issue for both the members and the constituency they represent.”
• Judicial Oversight of Punitive Measures:
  • The Court reaffirmed that if a punishment seems excessively harsh, constitutional courts have a duty to review the actions taken by the legislature to ensure fairness. “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.”
• Guiding Principles for Scrutinizing Punishments:
  • The Supreme Court outlined several parameters that courts must consider when evaluating the appropriateness of legislative actions against members:
    • (a) Degree of obstruction caused by the member in the proceedings of the House.
    • **(b) Whether the member’s behavior brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire House.
    • (c) Previous conduct of the erring member.
    • (d) Subsequent conduct, such as remorse or cooperation with institutional mechanisms.
    • (e) Availability of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the member.
    • (f) Whether crude expressions used by the member were deliberate or simply reflective of local dialect.
    • (g) Whether the measure adopted is suitable for achieving the desired disciplinary purpose.
    • (h) Balancing the interests of society, particularly the electorates, with those of the erring member.
• Purpose of Punishment:
  • The Court further clarified that the primary goal of legislative discipline is to maintain decorum within the House, not to serve as a tool for retribution. The judgment emphasized that any punishment should foster an environment of constructive debate and deliberation. “The purpose of imposing punishment is not to serve as a tool for retribution but rather to uphold and enforce discipline within the House.”
• Fairness and Due Process:
  • The Court underscored the importance of fairness, reasonableness, and due process when determining punitive measures. It must be ensured that such actions do not unduly stifle democratic participation or diminish the representative nature of the institution. “Any punitive measure must be proportionate and guided by considerations of fairness, reasonableness, and due process.”

Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH v. BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 530/2024

Attachment: