Supreme Court settles the maintainability of writ petition challenging the decision of Ethics Committee: Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh vs. Bihar Legislative Council (2025) INSC 264 (25 February 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 25 February 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 264

Judges: Surya Kant, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

Can a legislative body’s decision to expel a member be challenged in court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh vs. Bihar Legislative Council. The court examined the extent to which judicial review can be applied to the internal proceedings and decisions of legislative bodies, particularly concerning disciplinary actions against their members. The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, delivered a judgment clarifying the balance between legislative privilege and the fundamental rights of elected members.

Case Background:

The case originated from allegations of unparliamentary conduct by Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, a Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) in Bihar. The Ethics Committee of the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) recommended his expulsion following complaints about his behavior within the House. This recommendation was based on the use of derogatory expressions and disruptive conduct during a session of the BLC.

Dr. Singh, a member of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), was elected to the BLC on June 29, 2020. The controversy began after the Governor’s address on February 13, 2024, when Dr. Singh and another MLC, Md. Sohaib, engaged in disruptive behavior, including shouting slogans against the Chief Minister.

A complaint was lodged against Dr. Singh and Md. Sohaib, leading to an inquiry by the Ethics Committee. While Md. Sohaib expressed regret for his actions, Dr. Singh initially sought exemptions from appearing before the committee, citing various reasons, including election duties and his father’s illness. When he eventually appeared, he questioned the committee’s authority, leading to further complications.

The Ethics Committee recommended Dr. Singh’s expulsion and a two-day suspension for Md. Sohaib. The BLC accepted these recommendations, resulting in Dr. Singh’s expulsion and a subsequent notification by the BLC Secretariat. This prompted Dr. Singh to file a writ petition challenging his expulsion.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings:

The Chairman of the BLC issued a letter to Dr. Singh and Md. Sohaib, informing them about the complaint and forwarding it to the Ethics Committee for inquiry. The Ethics Committee held several proceedings, during which Md. Sohaib expressed regret for his conduct. However, Dr. Singh repeatedly sought exemptions, and when he finally appeared, he questioned the committee’s authority.

The Ethics Committee, without prior notice to Dr. Singh, preponed its proceedings and concluded that his conduct was unjustified. It then submitted the Impugned Report, recommending Dr. Singh’s expulsion and Md. Sohaib’s suspension. The BLC accepted these recommendations, leading to Dr. Singh’s expulsion.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Election Commission announced a bye-election for the seat previously held by Dr. Singh. The Supreme Court stayed the declaration of the bye-election result, considering its impact on the petition’s outcome.

Legal Framework:

The legal framework relevant to this case includes:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: Grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India: States that ‘the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure’.
• Article 208 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the State Legislature to make rules for regulating its procedure and the conduct of its business.
• Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act): Concerns the filling of vacancies in legislatures through elections.
• Rule 10, Chapter 36 of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business: Specifies the penalties that the Ethics Committee may recommend, including censure, reprimand, suspension, and any other punishment deemed fit.

Arguments:

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

• Violation of Natural Justice:

  The expulsion violated principles of natural justice as Dr. Singh was not provided with relevant materials, including video clips of his alleged transgressions. This denial prejudiced his ability to prepare a defense.

• Unilateral Advancement of Hearing Date:

  The Ethics Committee advanced the hearing date without informing Dr. Singh, effectively condemning him unheard, which suggests malice and gross illegality.

• Selective Circulation of Ethics Committee Report:

  The Ethics Committee’s report was selectively circulated among members of the ruling party, keeping it confidential from opposition members, thus undermining their ability to participate effectively in the proceedings.

• Disproportionate Punishment:

  The punishment of expulsion was disproportionate compared to the suspension given to another MLC, Md. Sohaib, who faced similar allegations. A graded approach to disciplining members was not followed.

• Violation of Fundamental Rights:

  The severe punishment imposed on Dr. Singh violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:

• Maintainability of the Writ Petition:

  The writ petition is not maintainable under Article 212(1) of the Constitution, which prevents questioning the validity of legislative proceedings based on procedural irregularities.

• Prerogative of the House:

  The House has the prerogative to regulate its business and procedure, and its decisions cannot be tested on the grounds of proportionality. The court cannot examine the quantum of punishment.

• Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:

  The Ethics Committee adhered to the principles of audi alteram partem by providing Dr. Singh with reasonable opportunities to be heard. He failed to avail these opportunities deliberately.

• Knowledge of the Rules:

  Dr. Singh, as a member of the House, is deemed to have knowledge of the formation and proceedings of the Ethics Committee under Article 208 of the Constitution.

• Parity with Other MLC:

  Dr. Singh cannot claim parity with Md. Sohaib because the latter cooperated with the Ethics Committee and expressed remorse, while Dr. Singh remained defiant.

• Previous Misconduct:

  Dr. Singh has a history of degrading the authority of the House through indecent acts, for which he was previously suspended.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the instant Writ Petition is maintainable in view of Article 212 (1) of the Constitution of India and whether the proceedings of the Ethics Committee are amenable to judicial review?
2. Can this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction review the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the House?
3. If so, whether the Petitioner’s expulsion is disproportionate to the misconduct attributed to him and whether it merits any interference?
4. If Issue No. (iii) is answered in the affirmative, whether this Court is empowered to determine the quantum of punishment that may be imposed on the Petitioner?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities:

The court considered various cases and legal principles, including:

• Ashish Shelar and Ors. v. The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and Anr. [(2022) 12 SCC 273] Supreme Court of India: Held that the substantive disciplinary or rationality of self-security measure inflicted upon the erring member is open to judicial review on the touch stone of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal, irrational or arbitrary.
• Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon’ble Speaker of Lok Sabha & Ors. [(2007) 3 SCC 184] Supreme Court of India: Recognized the power of the Legislature to expel a member but cautioned that “expulsion of a member is a grave measure and normally, it should not be taken”.
• Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. [(2003) 8 SCC 9] Supreme Court of India: Where a public servant was penalised with dismissal from service for the offense of misplacing and losing an official file, the punishment was reduced to withholding of increment of the employee.
• LIC of India v. R. Dhandapani [(2006) 13 SCC 613] Supreme Court of India: In a case involving a delinquent employee who did not join duty upon transfer, the Court concluded that the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the misdemeanour.
• Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project BSNL & Ors. [(2014) 14 SCC 731] Supreme Court of India: Blacklisting from Government tender auctions is considered proportionate in dire cases, such as where the contractor has embezzled funds in collusion with Government employees.
• Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr. v. Shishir Realty (P) Ltd. & Ors. [(2022) 16 SCC 527] Supreme Court of India: The Court protected contract awardees from withdrawal of the contract on mere hyper-technical grounds.
• Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. [(2004) 2 SCC 130] Supreme Court of India: Where a lessee was in default of lease premium, rent, and interest due to underdeveloped surroundings, the harsh step of resumption of the land as well as forfeiture of the already paid sum would be too harsh, when recovery proceedings are available.
• Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board & Anr. v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors. [(2010) 6 SCC 614] Supreme Court of India: The Court upheld the stronger step taken by the Railway Recruitment Board for re-test of limited candidates, when there was evidence of paper leaking and mass-cheating.
• Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors. [(2016) 7 SCC 353] Supreme Court of India: The test of proportionality is widely used to consider the vires of legislative as well as executive actions.
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India & Ors. [(2020) 3 SCC 637] Supreme Court of India: When dealing with the laws empowering the Executive to restrict internet in areas with underlying disturbances, the Court has compared the importance of the right to speech and expression against that of national security concerns.
• Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 150] Supreme Court of India: A Constitution Bench of this Court had the occasion to compare the importance of the right to financial privacy and the right to political transparency, which also led to the evolution of what is called the ‘double proportionality standard’.
• Internet & Mobile Assn. of India v. RBI [(2020) 10 SCC 274] Supreme Court of India: This Court delved into various circumstances surrounding the use, merits, and demerits of virtual currencies, taking a view on the impact of its proliferation as well as curtailment on the economy, individual investors, and its exchanges, thus coming to the conclusion that the relevant RBI circulars had a disproportionate impact on the market vis-à-vis the RBI’s aim to regulate virtual currencies.
• Shivu & Anr. v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Anr. [(2007) 4 SCC 713] Supreme Court of India: The principle of proportion between crime and punishment is a principle of just desert that serves as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable.
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1982) 3 SCC 24] Supreme Court of India: In cases of death penalty, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the perpetrator are weighed in tandem and scrupulously studied.
• Lehna v. State of Haryana [(2002) 3 SCC 76] Supreme Court of India: A sort of ‘balance sheet’ is drawn up which aids in undertaking the exercise of satisfying proportionality.
• Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors. [2024 INSC 479] Supreme Court of India: This Court has repeatedly cautioned against excessively stringent or disproportionate bail conditions as a side-effect of granting this important relief.
• Munish Bhasin and Ors v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. [(2009) 4 SCC 45] Supreme Court of India: This Court has repeatedly cautioned against excessively stringent or disproportionate bail conditions as a side-effect of granting this important relief.
• Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 897] Supreme Court of India: This Court has repeatedly cautioned against excessively stringent or disproportionate bail conditions as a side-effect of granting this important relief.
• Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2020) 10 SCC 77] Supreme Court of India: This Court has repeatedly cautioned against excessively stringent or disproportionate bail conditions as a side-effect of granting this important relief.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248] Supreme Court of India: This Court held against excessive restrictions on liberty, especially those which are disproportionate to the State’s purported objectives.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2014) 8 SCC 273] Supreme Court of India: These cases clearly demonstrate the wide prevalence of the principle of proportionality in the application and implementation of law.
• Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 611] Supreme Court of India: Punishment disproportionate to the offence or action is in direct violation of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.
• Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan & Ors. v. J. Hussain [(2013) 10 SCC 106] Supreme Court of India: Punishment disproportionate to the offence or action is in direct violation of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.
• B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. [1995 (6) SCC 749] Supreme Court of India: In order to curtail perpetuating illegality, abridge prolonged litigation, prevent unnecessary hardship to the parties involved and to do complete justice, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, is vested with the authority to substitute the punishment where the facts and circumstances so warrant.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the expulsion of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh from the Bihar Legislative Council. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate Dr. Singh as a member of the BLC. The Court further held that the punishment of expulsion was disproportionate to the misconduct attributed to Dr. Singh and that the Ethics Committee had not followed the principles of natural justice in its proceedings.

Dissenting Opinion:

There was no dissenting opinion in this case.

Ratio Decidendi:

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while legislative bodies have the power to regulate their internal proceedings and discipline their members, such power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review, particularly when it involves fundamental rights and principles of natural justice. The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the misconduct, and the process must be fair and transparent.

Obiter Dicta:

The Court observed that the role of an elected representative is not only to represent their constituents but also to uphold the dignity and decorum of the House. Members should conduct themselves in a manner that enhances the credibility of the legislative body and avoids bringing disrepute to the institution.

Flowchart of the Judgment:

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh vs. Bihar Legislative Council clarifies the scope of judicial review over legislative actions concerning the discipline of its members. It underscores the importance of proportionality and fairness in such proceedings, balancing legislative privilege with the fundamental rights of elected representatives. This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s role in ensuring that legislative actions adhere to constitutional principles and do not unduly infringe upon the rights of individuals or the democratic process.