SC defines limits of legislative penalties, cites proportionality

THE PERIOD OF EXPULSION UNDERGONE BY THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DEEMED AS HIS SUSPENSION PERIOD, SC SAID

- Utkarsh Anand

NEW DELHI: When it set aside the expulsion of Bihar Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) legislator Sunil Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court on Tuesday also laid down a detailed framework to assess the proportionality of punitive action taken by legislatures against lawmakers, emphasising that punishment must be just and necessary because "the absence of an elected representative disrupts the democratic process and undermines the voice of the electorate".

A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh underscored that while legislatures have the authority to discipline members, expulsions and severe penalties should be imposed only in "exceptional" cases and must withstand judicial scrutiny. It said that courts must consider factors such as the degree of obstruction caused, whether the member's actions discredited the dignity of the House, their past and subsequent conduct and the impact on the electorate before upholding severe punitive measures.

In this case, Singh was expelled for calling Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar, whose Janata Dal (United) has a history of switching between the Congress-RJD and BJP-led alliances, "Palturam" (a coinage that means someone who keeps flipping).

The apex court held that constitutional courts have a duty to review legislative actions if they appear "prima facie harsh and disproportionate". Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankarnarayanan appeared for Singh, while senior advocate Ranjit Kumar represented the legislative council.