The Supreme Court has set aside the expulsion of RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh from the Bihar Legislative Council for making derogatory remarks against Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. The Court underscored that any punishment imposed on a legislator for breach of privilege must be proportionate to the misconduct.
“Imposing a disproportionate punishment not only undermines democratic values by depriving the member of participation in House proceedings but also affects the electorate, who remain unrepresented,” observed a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh.
The Court emphasized that even short-term absences can hinder a legislator’s ability to engage in critical discussions and decision-making. “The removal of a member from the House is a serious matter, affecting both the individual legislator and their constituency,” the Court noted. It further held that if a punishment appears to be excessively harsh or disproportionate, Constitutional Courts have a duty to intervene and review its justification.
Guiding Principles on Proportionality in Legislative Punishments
The judgment outlined key parameters for courts to consider when assessing the proportionality of disciplinary actions against legislators. While these principles are not exhaustive and may vary based on the facts of each case, they include:
• Impact on House Proceedings: The extent to which the member’s actions disrupted legislative functioning.
• Dignity of the House: Whether the member’s conduct tarnished the reputation of the legislative body.
• Past Conduct: Any history of misconduct by the legislator.
• Subsequent Behavior: Expressions of remorse or cooperation with institutional mechanisms.
• Availability of Lesser Measures: Whether alternative disciplinary actions could have sufficed.
• Intent Behind the Remarks: Whether the offensive statements were deliberate and motivated or influenced by local dialect.
• Suitability of the Punishment: Whether the action taken effectively serves its intended purpose.
• Balancing Public Interest: Weighing the interests of the electorate against the disciplinary needs of the House.
The Court emphasized that legislative punishments should be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, ensuring they do not suppress democratic participation or compromise the representative character of the legislature. It reiterated that disciplinary actions must uphold decorum, encourage constructive debate, and be guided by principles of fairness and due process rather than serve as a tool for retribution.
Case Details
• Case Title: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council & Ors.
• W.P.(C) No.: 530/2024
• Counsel:
• For Petitioner: Senior Advocates Dr. AM Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan
• For Bihar Legislative Council: Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar
This ruling sets an important precedent in safeguarding legislative members’ rights while ensuring accountability within legislative bodies.
