Citation: 2025 INSC 264
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: 25 February 2025
Legal Provisions Involved: Article 32, Article 212(1), Article 142, Article 14, Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, & Section 151A of the Representation of People Act, 1951
1. FACTS
As the Chief Whip of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) in the Bihar Legislative Council (MLC), Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh was appointed on June 29, 2020. After the Janata Dal (United) broke with the RJD and established an alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party in early 2024, the political dynamics in the Bihar administration experienced a major shift. Tensions between the Legislative Council intensified during these volatile political events.
Throughout the 206th Session of the Bihar Legislative Council on February 13, 2024, Dr. Singh and colleague MLC Md. Sohaib disrupted the governor’s speech and reacted in a way that was deemed disrespectful and unparliamentary. Dr. Singh reportedly called the Chief Minister “Paltu Ram” and slammed him for being deceitful and manipulative.
A member of the majority party protested regarding the unrest that occurred on February 19, 2024. The chairman of the council sent the matter to the Ethics Committee. Md. Sohaib apologized when he stood before the committee on May 3, 2024, while Dr. Singh requested several exemptions, claiming personal and electoral commitments. Although being given many opportunities to demonstrate, he refused to follow through. Although Dr. Singh did ultimately turn up on June 12, 2024, he challenged the committee’s authority rather than confront the accusations. The committee proposed Dr. Singh’s expulsion and abruptly ceased the inquiry after moving the hearing from June 19 to June 14, 2024. Md. Sohaib, on the contrary, was proposed to be suspended for two days.
Upon the BLC’s ratification of the committee’s report on July 26, 2024, Dr. Singh was officially expelled. After filling the vacancy, the Indian Election Commission followed by organizing a by-election. By alleging that his fundamental rights were being breached and challenging the punishment’s proportionality and procedural validity, Dr. Singh challenged the Supreme Court under Article 32[1] of the Constitution.
2. ISSUES RAISED
The Supreme Court proceeded to look into four significant legal questions involving
- whether the writ petition could be sustained under Article 32 of the Constitution, and if Article 212(1), which restricts judicial review of the legislative process, applied.
- Whether judicial review of the Ethics Committee’s proceedings that resulted in the petitioner’s expulsion is permissible.
- Whether Dr. Singh’s expulsion was unconstitutional since it was out of proportion to the misconduct that was alleged against him.
- If the removal is deemed excessive, can the Supreme Court employ its authority under Article 142 to substitute a less severe penalty?
3. CONTENTIONS
Arguments by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, along with senior attorneys Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, presented the following arguments:
● Natural Justice Is Denied: Crucial evidence, especially the video footage of the alleged misbehavior, had not been provided to Dr. Singh by the Ethics Committee. This operated against the fundamental tenets of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair trial and the ability to dispute the evidence used against the accused.
● Absence of Due Process: At the hearing on June 12, 2024, the committee stated that more proceedings would be held on June 19. However, it ended the investigation and rescheduled the meeting to June 14 without notifying Dr. Singh, robbing him of a fair chance to be heard.
● Only those who were part of the ruling coalition received access to the committee’s report, therefore preventing opposition members from contributing fully to discussions. This jeopardized the process’s validity and impartiality.
● Disparate Treatment:Although Dr. Singh was dismissed, Md. Sohaib, who indulged in the identical wrongdoing, obtained only a two-day suspension. The equality requirement of Article 14 was violated by this unjustified, unfair, and arbitrary treatment.
● Fundamental Rights Violation: According to Dr. Singh, the punishment breached his rights to equality (Article 14)[2], freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a))[3], and life and liberty (Article 21[4]). The majority of voters who supported him were essentially disenfranchised by his expulsion, thus having an impact on both a democratic constituency and a person.
Arguments by the Respondents:
- During his appearance on behalf of the Bihar Legislative Council, Senior Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted the following counterarguments:
- In compliance with Article 212(1): Since alleged anomalies were within the realm of legislative procedure, which is beyond the ambit of judicial review, the petition failed to be maintained.
- Persistent Non-Cooperation: Dr. Singh had sufficient time to address the accusations. He behaved arrogantly and noncompliantly in front of the committee. In contrast to Md. Sohaib, who expressed regret, Dr. Singh contested the committee’s authority.
- Greater Expectations for Chief Whip: Dr. Singh was obligated to behave excellently in his capacity as chief whip of a major party in politics. Strict punishment was necessary for his disrespect for legal requirements.
- Former Misconduct: Dr. Singh received a suspension in 2022 due to a record of inappropriate behavior. The Ethics Committee’s recommendation of expulsion was supported by this pattern of behavior.
- No methodological flaws: The Ethics Committee worked in line with BLC regulations, and the House supported the final judgment, suggesting that it was a valid use of internal authority.
- Bye-Election Lawful: The Election Commission claimed that, in compliance with Section 151A of the Representation of People Act, 1951[5], it was bound by law to call a bye-election as soon as a vacancy was announced. The entire process was statutory and could not be contested on the basis of merit.
4. RATIONALE
Maintenance of the Petition: The Court concluded that Article 212(1)[6] fails to provide legislative actions, particularly those of an administrative nature, immunity in general but only applies to “irregularities of procedure” in legislative proceedings. Considering the Ethics Committee’s activities—receiving complaints, executing investigations, and imposing sanctions—were administrative in origin and had civil repercussions, they are therefore entitled to judicial scrutiny under Article 32.
Legislative Discipline Judicial Review: The Court affirmed the constitutional constraints on legislative bodies’ disciplinary authority. It highlighted that fundamental rights and natural justice principles cannot be replaced by legislative privilege. Random, exaggerated, or unjustly applied punishment cannot be justified by the legitimacy of internal autonomy.
Doctrine of Proportionality: Considering Indian administrative, use, and criminal law jurisprudence as a foundation, the Court performed an in-depth investigation of proportionality as a fundamental constitutional notion while bringing it into accordance with international norms. It declared that the punishment had to be necessary to accomplish the objective sought, substantially harm rights, and be logically connected to the offense. Expulsion was considered a harsh and unnecessary penalty in the circumstances.
Effects of Expulsion on Democracy: Eliminating an elected official has a bearing on both the individual and the democratic rights of the individuals who elected them. The court emphasized that expulsions must be used judiciously and solely in cases of serious wrongdoing that warrant such a severe measure, emphasizing the wider harm such sanctions pose to democracy.
Availability of Less Severe Penalties: A wide range of disciplinary actions, such as censure, reprimand, and suspension, have been provided by the BLC Rules, notably Rule 10 under Chapter 36. The Ethics Committee was unable to offer a rationale for ignoring these less harsh options. There was no plausible justification for deciding to apply the most severe punishment, expulsion.
Utilization of Article 142: The Court used Article 142 to substitute the expulsion penalty with a suspension for the previously imposed time in order to avoid further delay and guarantee full justice. Without remanding the case and further to the procedural delay, this corrective approach made sure that justice was not only accomplished but also seemed to have been served.
5. DEFECTS OF LAW
1. Misapplication of Article 212(1): To safeguard their administrative judgments from critiques, the respondents excessively relied on Article 212(1). The court stated that administrative judgments, especially those that violate fundamental rights, are not protected, while legislative actions are.
2. Lack of a Clear Framework for Disciplinary Sanctions: The BLC Rules defined a hierarchy of disciplinary sanctions; however, their application wasn’t governed by any formalized or structured framework. This empowered the Ethics Committee with unrestricted authority to suggest expulsion.
3. Procedural Arbitrary Conduct: By prolonging the hearing without prior notice, prohibiting the petitioner from receiving evidence, and acting in a political, opaque manner, the committee violated due process. The institutional integrity of legislative discipline is damaged by such acts.
4. Failure to Apply Natural Justice: The respondents breached basic legal norms by selectively distributing the committee’s report and denying the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard, rendering the action open to constitutional review.
6. INFERENCE
The court’s decision in Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council is an important milestone toward enhancing judicial supervision of legislatures’ internal disciplinary processes. It sets up a morally sound equilibrium between constitutional accountability and parliamentary privilege, particularly as laws impact basic rights.
The court halted the abuse of legislative authority under the pretense of autonomy and privilege by reiterating the judiciary’s position as the defender of constitutional morality. It highlighted how legislative bodies’ use of disciplinary authority must be based on constitutional principles, including justice, proportionality, and representative democracy.
By such as the notion of proportionality as a check on arbitrary legislative punishments, the court’s decision further improves the doctrinal terrain of Indian constitutional law. It assures that elected officials aren’t arbitrarily dismissed without cause and that political or procedural factors are not used to suppress the opinions of their constituents.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court granted the writ petition and held that Dr. Singh’s expulsion is disproportionate and unconstitutional. Dr. Singh was directed to be reinstated as a member of the Bihar Legislative Council without being paid back, and the expulsion was substituted with a presumed suspension. They annulled the by-election. The decision is a constitutional statement that, regardless of their autonomy, lawmakers must keep to the rule of law, fairness, and transparency.
Delina Sharma
3rd year, BA. LLB. (Hons.)
NMIMS, Mumbai
[1] India Const. art. 32.
[2] India Const. art. 14.
[3] India Const. art. 19(1)(a).
[4] India Const. art. 21.
[5] The Representation of the People Act, No. 43 of 1951, § 151A, India Code (1951).
[6] India Const. art. 212(1).