Suspension of MLA

17th January, 2022 Polity

Figure 2: No Copyright Infringement Intended

Context:

The bench, consisting of Judges AM Khanwilkar and Judge Dinesh Maheshwari, found that a one-year suspension was "worse than expulsion" because no members were represented.

On the first day of Congress's winter session last month, at the request of the government, twelve Rajya Sabha members were suspended for the rest of the session on suspicion of unruly behavior on the final day of the monsoon session.

The challenge is primarily based on: denial of the principles of rights of nature and breach of prescribed procedures.
Article 14: The 12 MLA stated that they were not given the opportunity to file a proceeding and that suspension violated their fundamental right to equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution.
They also argued that they were not given access to video footage of the House of Representatives session and it was not clear how they were identified among the large crowds gathered at the Chamber of Commerce.
Rule 53: The MLA also argued that under Rule 53 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, the power to suspend can only be exercised by the chairman and cannot be voted on by resolution as in this

Undisciplined Vulgar Behavior: An affidavit filed by the government points out the fact that the opposition leader apologized for the 12 MLA's "undisciplined vulgar behavior." Therefore, it was out of the question to hear or make a written statement from MLA that ignored the house.
Article 212: Government lawyers argued that the House of Representatives acted within its legislative jurisdiction and that courts were not authorized to investigate legislative proceedings under Article 212.
No Authority of Court to Question: Article 212 (1) states that "the validity of the procedure in the state legislature must not be questioned on the grounds of alleged procedural errors."
Article 194: The state also refers to Article 194 of the powers and privileges of the House of Representatives, arguing that any member who violates these privileges may be suspended by the unique powers of the House of Representative

Violation of Basic Structure: if the suspended MLA members have not been represented in Parliament for a year. This may lead to their seat vacant"
Violation of Representation of People’s Act: According to Section 151 (A) of the Representation of the People's Act of 1951, "by-elections to fill vacancies shall take place within six months from the date of the vacancies." This means that, with the exceptions mentioned in this section, no member can remain without a representative for more than 6 months.
Unconstitutional: The Supreme Court said the one-year suspension was prima facie unconstitutional, as it exceeded the six-month limit and resulted in "punishing all members, not members."

Rules 373, 374, and 374A of Lok Sabha's procedural rules: stipulate the expulsion of members whose behavior is "significantly irregular" and the suspension of members who abuse or intentionally interfere with the house rules.
Maximum suspension: According to these rules, "5 consecutive sessions or the rest of the session, whichever is shorter).
Rules 255 and 256: The maximum suspension of the RajyaSabha under rules 255 and 256 is also the rest of the session. The recent suspension of some members did not continue beyond the meeting.
Legislative Assembly: Similar rules apply to the Legislature and the Legislature, requiring maximum suspension so that the rest of the session is not

The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether the judiciary can intervene in the House proceedings.
However, constitutional experts say the court has made clear in a previous ruling that the judiciary can intervene in the event of unconstitutional acts by the House of Representatives.