# ASHISH SHELAR & ORS v. THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ANR

- **Citation:** [2022] 18 S.C.R. 762
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022
- **Bench:** A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, C.T. Ravikumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ashish-shelar-ors-v-the-maharashtra-legislative-assembly-anr-36147
- **Pages:** 64

## Headnote

Constitution of India : Art. 190(4), 208 - Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly Rules, 2015 - rr.8, 53, 106 - Suspension of
Member of Legislative Assembly - Petitioners, members of
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (2019-2024), belongs to Bhartiya
Janata Party, the principal opposition party - During the
proceedings of the Monsoon Session of the Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly heated exchanges between the members of the ruling party
and the opposition party as general feeling developed amongst the
opposition that the business of the House was being conducted in
unilateral manner - Thereafter, resolution moved by the Minister
for Parliamentary Affairs for initiating action against the petitioners12 MLAs of the BJP by way of suspension for one year for having
committed contempt of the House, and was later passed by majority
votes - Writ petition by the petitioners seeking quashing and setting
aside of the said resolution passed by the Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly being unconstitutional and grossly illegal - Held:
Resolution suffers from the vice of being unconstitutional, grossly
illegal and irrational to the extent of period of suspension beyond
the remainder of the concerned(ongoing) Session - It is not a case
of mere procedural irregularity committed by the Legislature within
the meaning of Art. 212(1) - Said resolution is non est in the eyes of
law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational -
Under r. 53 Speaker is expected to exercise this power only in case
of conduct of the member being "grossly disorderly" and provides
for a graded (rational and objective standard) approach to be
adopted by the Speaker for ensuring orderly conduct of the business
of the House - Suspension beyond the remainder period of the
ongoing Session would not only be grossly irrational measure, but
also violative of basic democratic values - One year suspension is
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 762
762
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
763
worse than "expulsion", "disqualification" or "resignation"-
Procedure in directly withdrawing the petitioner without inquiry by
the Committee of Privilege and opportunity of hearing to them is
neither prescribed in Part XVIII of the Rules or Rule 53 enabling
the Speaker to do so - Indeed, the constituency cannot have any
right to be represented by a disqualified or expelled member -
However, their representative cannot be kept away from the House
in the guise of suspension beyond the necessary (rational) period
linked to the ongoing Assembly Session, including the timeline
referred to in Art. 190(4) and s. 151A of the 1951 Act - Suspension
beyond the Session would be bordering on punishing not only the
member concerned, but also inevitably impact the legitimate rights
of the constituency from where the member had been elected - It is,
therefore, a drastic measure trenching upon imposing penalty more
than disciplinary or corrective measure, beyond the limited inherent
powers of the House - Thus, the impugned resolution is, thus,
declared to be ineffective in law, insofar as the period beyond the
remainder of the stated Session in which the resolution came to be
passed - Petitioners entitled for all consequential benefits of being
members of the Legislative Assembly, on and after the expiry of the
period of the remainder of the concerned Session.
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, 2015 - r. 53 - Power
to order withdrawal of member - Procedure prescribed under -
Explained.
Words and phrases: grossly and disorderly, suspension -
Meaning of, in the context of functioning of the House during the
session.
Allowing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The impugned resolution suffers from the vice
of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal and irrational to the
extent of period of suspension beyond the remainder of the
concerned(ongoing) Session. Further, it is not a case of mere
procedural irregularity committed by the Legislature within the
meaning of Article 212(1) of the Constitution. The impugned
resolution directing

## Text

_Characters 0–39,978 of 148,625. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39978 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
ASHISH SHELAR & ORS.
v.
THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.797 of 2021)
JANAUARY 28, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India : Art. 190(4), 208 - Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly Rules, 2015 - rr.8, 53, 106 - Suspension of
Member of Legislative Assembly - Petitioners, members of
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (2019-2024), belongs to Bhartiya
Janata Party, the principal opposition party - During the
proceedings of the Monsoon Session of the Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly heated exchanges between the members of the ruling party
and the opposition party as general feeling developed amongst the
opposition that the business of the House was being conducted in
unilateral manner - Thereafter, resolution moved by the Minister
for Parliamentary Affairs for initiating action against the petitioners12 MLAs of the BJP by way of suspension for one year for having
committed contempt of the House, and was later passed by majority
votes - Writ petition by the petitioners seeking quashing and setting
aside of the said resolution passed by the Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly being unconstitutional and grossly illegal - Held:
Resolution suffers from the vice of being unconstitutional, grossly
illegal and irrational to the extent of period of suspension beyond
the remainder of the concerned(ongoing) Session - It is not a case
of mere procedural irregularity committed by the Legislature within
the meaning of Art. 212(1) - Said resolution is non est in the eyes of
law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational -
Under r. 53 Speaker is expected to exercise this power only in case
of conduct of the member being "grossly disorderly" and provides
for a graded (rational and objective standard) approach to be
adopted by the Speaker for ensuring orderly conduct of the business
of the House - Suspension beyond the remainder period of the
ongoing Session would not only be grossly irrational measure, but
also violative of basic democratic values - One year suspension is
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 762
762
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
763
worse than "expulsion", "disqualification" or "resignation"-
Procedure in directly withdrawing the petitioner without inquiry by
the Committee of Privilege and opportunity of hearing to them is
neither prescribed in Part XVIII of the Rules or Rule 53 enabling
the Speaker to do so - Indeed, the constituency cannot have any
right to be represented by a disqualified or expelled member -
However, their representative cannot be kept away from the House
in the guise of suspension beyond the necessary (rational) period
linked to the ongoing Assembly Session, including the timeline
referred to in Art. 190(4) and s. 151A of the 1951 Act - Suspension
beyond the Session would be bordering on punishing not only the
member concerned, but also inevitably impact the legitimate rights
of the constituency from where the member had been elected - It is,
therefore, a drastic measure trenching upon imposing penalty more
than disciplinary or corrective measure, beyond the limited inherent
powers of the House - Thus, the impugned resolution is, thus,
declared to be ineffective in law, insofar as the period beyond the
remainder of the stated Session in which the resolution came to be
passed - Petitioners entitled for all consequential benefits of being
members of the Legislative Assembly, on and after the expiry of the
period of the remainder of the concerned Session.
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, 2015 - r. 53 - Power
to order withdrawal of member - Procedure prescribed under -
Explained.
Words and phrases: grossly and disorderly, suspension -
Meaning of, in the context of functioning of the House during the
session.
Allowing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The impugned resolution suffers from the vice
of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal and irrational to the
extent of period of suspension beyond the remainder of the
concerned(ongoing) Session. Further, it is not a case of mere
procedural irregularity committed by the Legislature within the
meaning of Article 212(1) of the Constitution. The impugned
resolution directing suspension of the petitioners beyond the
period of the remainder of the concerned Monsoon Session held
in July2021 is non est in the eyes of law, nullity, unconstitutional,
ASHISH SHELAR & ORS. v. THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
substantively illegal and irrational. The impugned resolution is,
thus, declared to be ineffective in law, insofar as the period beyond
the remainder of the stated Session in which the resolution came
to be passed. The petitioners are entitled for all consequential
benefits of being members of the Legislative Assembly, on and
after the expiry of the period of the remainder of the concerned
Session in July 2021. [Paras 72, 75, 76][822-D; 824-E-G]
2.1 It is settled law that even rules made to exercise the
powers and privileges of State Legislature constitute law within
the meaning of Article 13. The plea taken by the State that the
rules are neither statutory rules nor binding on the House will
be of no avail. [Paras 32, 33][801-A, B-C]
2.2 The rules so framed can be altered by the House at any
time. Until the rules are altered, however, the House is ordinarily
guided by the procedure prescribed in the rules framed
under Article 208 of the Constitution. At the same time,
proceedings inside the Legislature cannot be called into question
on the ground that the same have not been carried on in
accordance with the rules of business. It is, however, enough for
the present to observe that the framed under Article 208 acquire
the status of procedure established by law for the purpose
of Article 21 of the Constitution. Viewed thus, even though the
Legislature has the prerogative to deviate from the rules
including to alter the rules; until then, and even otherwise, it is
expected to adhere to the "express substantive stipulation"
(which is not mere procedure) in the rules framed under Article
208 of the Constitution and the principle underlying therein, being
procedure established by law. [Paras 34, 35][801-G-H; 802-A-D]
2.3 The dispensation prescribed under the Rules to
exercise power to order withdrawal of member (suspension) is
ascribable to Rule 53 of the Rules. This Rule not only speaks
about the procedure to be adopted for passing the drastic order
of withdrawal of a member from the House but also about the
substantive disciplinary or the rationality of the self- security
measure to be taken in a graded (objective standard) manner.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
The non-compliance of or deviation from the former (procedure)
may be non-justiciable. However, in regard to the substantive
disciplinary or the rationality of the self-security measure inflicted
upon the erring member, is open to judicial review on the
touchstone of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal and irrational
or arbitrary. In terms of above Rule, the power is exercised by
the Speaker being a quasi-judicial order directing the member
to withdraw from the meetings of the Assembly. The Speaker is
expected to exercise this power only in case of conduct of the
member being "grossly disorderly" and in a graded objective
manner. The raison d'etre is to ensure that the business of the
House on the given day or the ongoing Session, as the case may
be, can be carried on in an orderly manner and without any
disruption owing to misconduct of one or more members. The
expression used in the stated Rule is "grossly disorderly". The
expression "grossly disorderly" has not been defined in the
Rules. Grossly", is an adverb and indicative of relatively higher
degree of misconduct or so to say extremely wrong and deviant.
[Paras 36-38][802-D; 803-A-D, F-G]
2.4 Taking the totality of the meaning of expressions
"grossly" and "disorderly", it must follow that the conduct of the
member is such that it was impeding the smooth or orderly
functioning of the House, and may also be of such a nature that it
is likely to bring disrepute to the House. It may involve varied
situations and, therefore, implied exercise of rational corrective
mechanism is quintessential. The action of suspension or
directing withdrawal of a member from the meetings of the
Assembly is in the nature of self-security and is essentially
directed to ensure that the House can then protect itself against
obstruction, or disturbance of its ongoing proceedings owing to
the misconduct of any of its members. That power is different
from the privilege to inflict punishment on a member, which may
require higher degree of deprivation of the member over and
above participating in the proceedings of the House during the
Session. In a given case, it can be in the form of expulsion being
the highest degree of exclusion of the member from the House.
Yet another would be penal, in case of ordering imprisonment
owing to act of contempt of the House. Rule 53 of the Rules
provides for a graded (rational and objective standard) approach
ASHISH SHELAR & ORS. v. THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
to be adopted by the Speaker for ensuring orderly conduct of the
business of the House. In the present case, however, the Minister
for Parliamentary Affairs introduced a motion in the House for
initiating action for contempt of the House, which the Chairman
allowed it to be put to vote instantly at 14:40 hours on the same
day and it was passed by the House by majority in no time. Indeed,
if it is a case of grossly disorderly behaviour in the House, the
Speaker/Chairman himself is free to take instantaneous decision
to order withdrawal of the member from the meetings of the
Assembly during the remainder of the day's meeting and if it is a
case of repeat misconduct in the same Session - for the
remainder of the Session. [Paras 40, 41][804-E-H; 805-A-D]
2.5 Concededly, there is nothing in the constitutional
scheme or the rules framed under Article 208 to prevent a
member of the House to move a motion for directing withdrawal
of a member on the ground of his grossly disorderly conduct.
Further, if the Speaker can suo motu direct the member to
withdraw from the Assembly on the same day instantly to secure
smooth functioning of the proceedings, for the same logic, even
the House could pass a resolution itself on a motion being moved
by a member of the House instantly with the concurrence of the
Speaker on such a motion. [Para 42][805-E-F]
2.6 In the present case, the Chairman entertained the
subject motion and called upon the House to vote thereon, which
had the effect of giving tacit consent if not explicit concurrence
to the same. In that sense, it is not a case of resolution passed by
the House (to suspend its members) as being without jurisdiction.
It is a different matter that if the Speaker/Chairman was to do so,
it could be only under Rule 53 in a graded manner for the
remainder of the day and for repeat misconduct in the same
Session - for the remainder of the Session. That would be a
logical and rational approach consistent with the constitutional
tenets. If the House takes upon itself to discipline its members,
it is expected to adopt the same graded (rational and objective
standard) approach on the lines predicated in Rule 53. That would
be a case of rational action taken by the House as per the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
767
procedure established by law. As opposed to a rational decision,
it would be a case of irrational or preposterous approach. [Para
43-44][805-F-H; 806-A-B, D]
2.7 A priori, if the resolution passed by the House was to
provide for suspension beyond the period prescribed under the
stated Rule, it would be substantively illegal, irrational and
unconstitutional. In that, the graded (rational and objective
standard) approach predicated in Rule 53 is the benchmark to be
observed by the Speaker to enable him to ensure smooth working
of the House, without any obstruction or impediment and for
keeping the recalcitrant member away from the House for a
period maximum up to the remainder of the entire Session. [Para
45][806-F-G]
2.8 Inflicting suspension for a period "beyond the period
necessary" than to ensure smooth working/functioning of the
House during the Session "by itself"; and also, as per the
underlying objective standard specified in Rule 53, indubitably,
suffer from the vice of being grossly irrational measure adopted
against the erring member and also substantively illegal and
unconstitutional. [Para 46][807-A-B]
2.9 Suspension beyond the remainder period of the ongoing
Session would not only be grossly irrational measure, but also
violative of basic democratic values owing to unessential
deprivation of the member concerned and more importantly, the
constituency would remain unrepresented in the Assembly. It
would also impact the democratic setup as a whole by permitting
the thin majority Government (coalition Government) of the day
to manipulate the numbers of the Opposition Party in the House
in an undemocratic manner. Not only that, the Opposition will
not be able to effectively participate in the discussion/debate in
the House owing to the constant fear of its members being
suspended for longer period. There would be no purposeful or
meaningful debates but one in terrorem and as per the whims of
the majority. That would not be healthy for the democracy as a
whole. [Para 48][807-D-F]
2.10 It is well established that fundamental rights are
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, out of which Articles
ASHISH SHELAR & ORS. v. THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
14, 19 and 21 are the most frequently invoked to test the validity
of the executive as well as legislative actions when these actions
are subjected to judicial scrutiny. Different Articles in the
Constitution under chapter Fundamental Rights and the Directive
Principles in Part IV ought to be read as an integral and incorporeal
whole with possible overlapping with the subject matter of what
is to be protected by its various provisions particularly the
fundamental rights. The sweep of Article 21 is expansive enough
to govern the action of dismembering a member from the House
of the Legislative Assembly in the form of expulsion or be it a
case of suspension by directing withdrawal from the meeting of
the Assembly for the remainder of the Session. [Para 49][807-GH; 808-A-B]
2.11 It is evident from the impugned resolution that it has
been passed by the majority votes in the House immediately after
it was put to vote by the Chairman. It was in fact introduced as a
motion for initiating action for having committed contempt of the
House which ordinarily ought to have proceeded under Part XVIII
of the Rules dealing with Privileges. That would have required
constitution of a Committee of Privileges to enquire into the
entire matter by giving opportunity of hearing to the persons
concerned. Instead of adopting that procedure, the House itself
chose to direct withdrawal of the petitioners from the meetings
of the Assembly for a period of one year-which direction is neither
ascribable to the dispensation prescribed in Part XVIII of the
Rules or Rule 53 enabling the Speaker to do so. [Para 50][808B-D]
2.12 It is not a case of procedural irregularity as such.
Whereas, the decision taken by the House in this case, is one of
substantive illegality in directing suspension beyond the period
of remainder of the Session in which the motion was presented.
It is said so because, the period of suspension in excess of the
period essential to do so much less in a graded manner including
on principle underlying Rule 53, would be antithesis to rational
or objective standard approach for ensuring orderly functioning
of the House during the ongoing Session. [Para 51][808-E-F]
2.13 Reverting to the challenge to the impugned resolution
being grossly irrational. As noticed earlier, Rule 53 provides for
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
769
a graded (rational and objective standard) approach. The timeline
as specified in Rule 53 is with a view to address the immediate
concern of the House for ensuring orderly conduct of the business
of the House in the given Session. This action is implied on the
doctrine of necessity. The Speaker and for that matter, even the
House as a whole or by majority, would be within its power to
resort to such a mechanism being rational measure. Exceeding
the stated timeline is a substantive matter and not a procedural
irregularity. It would raise a basic question as to what purpose
would be served by withdrawing the member from the House for
successive Sessions falling within that period of one year. Indeed,
if the conduct of the member is gross warranting his removal
from the Assembly even beyond the period of sixty days [Article
190(4)] or six months (Section 151A of the 1951 Act), the House
is capable of invoking its inherent power of expulsion of such a
member, which is a greater power. [Para 52][808-F-H; 809-A-B]
2.14 Suspension for a day or for the remainder of the
Session, would be of a lesser degree of exercise of that power.
However, it is not open to contend that the higher degree of
power would include power to suspend the member beyond the
period essential to keep him/her away from the Assembly for
ensuring orderly conduct of the business of the House. The
important consideration for scrutinising the exercise of legislative
privileges is whether the same is necessary to safeguard the
integrity of the legislative functions. This Court had recognised
that the Legislature's power to punish for its contempt was not
untrammelled. That power of legislative chamber to punish for
its own contempt must coincide with the Legislature's interest
in protecting the integrity of its function. In other words, the
suspension of a member must be preferred as a short-term or a
temporary measure for restoring order in the functioning of the
concerned Assembly Session for completing its scheduled
business within time and by way of disciplinary measure against
the incorrigible member(s). [Para 53][809-B-E]
2.15 The word "suspension" is necessarily linked to
attendance of the member in the House. Thus, the suspension
ASHISH SHELAR & ORS. v. THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
770
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
may be resorted to merely for ensuring orderly conduct of the
business of the House during the concerned Session. Anything
in excess of that would be irrational suspension. This is so
because the member represents the constituency from where he
has been duly elected and longer suspension would entail in
deprivation of the constituency to be represented in the House.
It is true that right to vote and be represented is integral to our
democratic process and it is not an absolute right. Indeed, the
constituency cannot have any right to be represented by a
disqualified or expelled member. However, their representative
cannot be kept away from the House in the guise of suspension
beyond the necessary (rational) period linked to the ongoing
Assembly Session, including the timeline referred to in Article
190(4) of the Constitution and Section 151A of the 1951 Act. [Para
54] [809-E-H]
2.16 Suspension is essentially a disciplinary measure.
Suspension for a period of one year would assume the character
of punitive and punishment worse than expulsion. For, suspension
for long period and beyond the Session has the effect of creating
a de facto vacancy though not a de jure vacancy. The argument of
the State that despite suspension from the House, the members
would continue to discharge all other functions outside the House
as an elected representative. This plea, is tenuous. For, the effect
of such suspension is visited not only on the constituency that
goes unrepresented for potentially long and unessential time,
but also on the functioning of the Assembly itself. [Para 55][810A-C]
2.17 One-year suspension is worse than "expulsion",
"disqualification" or "resignation" - insofar as the right of the
constituency to be represented before the House/Assembly is
concerned. Long suspension bound to affect the rights harsher
than expulsion wherein amid term election is held within the
specified time in terms of Section 151A of the 1951 Act, not later
than six months. Thus, the impugned resolution is unreasonable,
irrational, and arbitrary and liable to be set aside. [Para 56][810D-E]
2.18 It must follow that in absence of any express provision
bestowing power in the Legislature to suspend its member(s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
771
beyond the term of the ongoing Session, the inherent power of
the Legislature can be invoked only to the extent necessary and
for proper exercise of the functions of the House at the relevant
point of time. No more. For that purpose, it could resort to
protective and self-defensive powers alone and not punitive at
all. [Para 60][814-F-G]
2.19 Implied or inherent power of the Legislature must be
reckoned to the extent only to what is required to be done by the
House for effective and orderly functioning of its business during
the ongoing Session and not beyond. For that very reason, Rule
53 provides for a graded corrective action, namely, on the first
occasion, the Speaker may suspend the member for the remainder
of the day and if the misbehaviour is repeated in the same Session
- for the remainder of the Session. [Paras 61, 62][815-F-G; 816F]
2.20 It must follow that only a graded approach is the
essence of a rational and logical approach; and only such action
of the Legislature which is necessary for orderly conduct of its
scheduled business of the ongoing Session can be regarded as
rational approach. Suspension beyond the Session would be
bordering on punishing not only the member concerned, but also
inevitably impact the legitimate rights of the constituency from
where the member had been elected. [Para 63][817-A-B]
2.21 In the present case, the House has already adopted
the Rules for conduct of its business and Rule 53 of the Rules
expressly provides for the mechanism regarding suspension of
its member. Indubitably, the source of powers and privileges 77
supra at Footnote No.66 of Legislatures in India is derived
from Article 105(3) in case of Parliament and Article
194(3) concerning the State Legislature. In absence of a law to
define such powers and privileges, as of now, it can only exercise
those powers as existed in the House of Commons of the
Parliament of United Kingdom at the commencement of the
Constitution. [Para 65][817-E-G]
2.22 A priori, if the Legislature intended to depart from
mechanism predicated in Rule 53, it ought to have expressly
ASHISH SHELAR & ORS. v. THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
provided for that dispensation. If it had done that by a law or in
the form of Rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution,
the legality and constitutionality thereof could have been tested.
Suffice it to note, in absence thereof, it would inevitably be
exercise of power without an express grant in that regard. In
such a case, the exercise of power can only be implied or inherent
and limited to the logic of general necessity by way of
self-protective or self-defensive action reasonably necessary for
proper exercise of the functions of the House during the ongoing
Session. Anything in excess then for a day or the remainder of
the ongoing Session, would not be necessary much less rational
exercise of inherent power of the Assembly. Even, Rule 53
bestows authority in the Speaker to take action against the
member only for ensuring orderly functioning of the House. Same
logic must apply to the exercise of inherent limited power by the
House, even if it may not be de facto under Rule 53. [Para 69][820E-G]
M. S. M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha & Ors. AIR 1959
SC 395 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 806; Raja Ram Pal v.
Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 184
: [2007] 1 SCR 317; Amarinder Singh v. Special
Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC
113 : [2010] 4 SCR 1105; Sub- Committee on Judicial
Accountability vs. Union of India & Ors. (1991) 4 SCC
699 : [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 1 - followed.
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj &Ors. v. Tamil Nadu
Legislative Assembly & Anr. (2016) 6 SCC 82 : [2016]
6 SCR 611; Sushanta Kumar Chand & Ors. v. The
Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly and Anr. AIR 1973
Ori 111; Special Reference No.1 of 1964 AIR 1965 SC
745 : [1965] SCR 413; Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana
& Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 1 : [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 521;
Jagdishbhai Thakore & Anr. v. Chandrikaben
Chudasma & Ors. 2007 (48) 4 GLR 2998; Chhabildas
Mehta, M.L.A. v. The Legislative Assembly, Gujarat State
(1970) 11 GLR 729; K. A. Mathialagan v. P. Srinivasan
& Ors. AIR 1973 Madras 371; A.M. Paulraj v. The
Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Madras &
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
773
Anr. AIR 1986 Madras 248; K. Anbazhagan & Ors. v.
The Secretary, The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Madras & Ors. 1987 SCC OnLine Mad 89; V. C.
Chandhira Kumar, Member of Legislative Assembly &
Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Secretariat &
Anr. 2013 (6) CTC 506; Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu
& Ors. AIR 1993 SC 412; M. C. Mehta v. Union of
India & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 237 : [1999] 3 SCR 1173;
Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. Asstt. Collector of Customs,
Bombay & Anr. [1967] 3 SCR 926 - referred to.
Barton v. Taylor (1886) 11 AC 197; Bradlaugh v.
Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271: 50 LT 620; Edward Kielley
vs. William Carson (1842) 4 Moore PC 63 : 13 ER 225
64; Thomas William Doyle v. George Charles Falconer,
(1865-67) LR 1 PC 328 : 36 LJPC 33 : 15 WR 366 -
referred to.
Treatise of Sir Thomas Erskine: The Law, Privileges
Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, fifteenth (1950)
Edition; Black's Law 11th Edition, 6th Edition; Concise
Oxford Dictionary 8 th Edition - referred to.
Case Law Refrence
[2016] 6 SCR 611
referred to
Para 8
[1959] Suppl. SCR 806
followed
Para 34
[1965] SCR 413
referred to
Para 18 d
[2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 521
referred to
Para 18 d
[2007] 1 SCR 317
followed
Para 22, 25, 34
[2010] 4 SCR 1105
followed
Para 23, 53
[1999] 3 SCR 1173
referred to
Para 19 c
[1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 1
followed
Para 24
[1967] 3 SCR 926
referred to
Para 31
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
797 of 2021.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
ASHISH SHELAR & ORS. v. THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
With
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 807, 800 and 808 of 2021.
 Siddharth Bhatnagar, Mahesh Jethmalani, Neeraj Kishan Kaul,
Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advs., Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Abhikalp Pratap
Singh, Abhay Anturkar, Ms. Pracheta Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz,
Utsav Trivedi, Abhinay, Ms. Astha Prasad, Himanshu Sachdeva,
Ms. Manini Roy, Ms. Shivani Bhushan, Ms. Unnati Vijay, Ms. Aishwarya
Samal, Pooran Chand Roy, Milinda Sharma, Ravi Sharma, Ms. Mugdha
Pande, Karan Dev Chopra, Ms. Arzoo Aneja, Ms. Ira Mahajan, Ms.
Bhavya Tyagi, Ms. Bhavya Pande, Ms. Aadya Yadav, Dhruv Tank, Advs.
for the Petitioners.
C. Aryama Sundaram, Sr. Adv., Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Akshay
Shinde, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Ms. Rohini
Musa, Zafar Inayat, Abhishek Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. The petitioners have been duly elected as members of the current
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (2019-2024). They got elected from
different constituencies in the State of Maharashtra. They belong to the
Bharatiya Janata Party1, the principal Opposition Party in the
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The Ruling Party is a coalition
between the Shiv Sena, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the
Indian National Congress (INC) christened as "Maha Vikas Aghadi".
2. This lis emanates from the events as unfolded during the
Monsoon Session of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 5.7.2021.
The proceedings of the House witnessed heated exchanges between
the members of the Opposition Party and the Ruling Party due to an
impression formed by the former that the business of the House was
being conducted in unilateral manner, with conscious and engineered
effort to suppress voice of the Opposition Party. In that, even the Leader
of Opposition was denied an opportunity to speak on a crucial motion
under consideration. At the relevant time, the House was presided over
by the Chairman nominated under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly Rules2, who according to the petitioners, denied opportunity
to the Opposition Party to speak including to the Leader of Opposition.
1 for short, "BJP"
2 for short, "Rules"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
775
3. It is alleged that in the meeting of the Business Advisory
Committee, which preceded the actual Assembly Session, there was a
concerted effort on behalf of the members of the Ruling Party to cut
short the Assembly Session for a period of two days especially when the
State was facing unprecedented situation owing to pandemic, which
needed elaborate deliberation in the House. The concerted effort was to
strip of all legislative tools available to the Opposition Party so as to
make sure that voice of opposition is muffled and suppressed.
4. The Chair of the Speaker of the House was vacant at the
relevant time due to stepping down by the incumbent. The election for
appointing a new Speaker of the Assembly was yet to be conducted. As
per Rule 8 of the Rules, in such a situation other nominated member of
the House had to preside on 5.7.2021. As aforesaid, a general feeling
had developed amongst the members of the Opposition Party that the
business of the House was not being transacted in congenial manner
and they were prevented from raising important questions and express
their views on matters of public importance. To wit, when the Minister
was moving a resolution in relation to the empirical data pertaining to
OBC, the Leader of Opposition wanted to object to the same. However,
he was denied that opportunity. That eventually led to heated exchanges
between the members of both sides and consequently, the House was
adjourned.
5. Thereafter, some of the members of the Opposition went to
meet the Deputy Speaker in his chamber to vent out their grievance
regarding the unfair manner of conducting proceedings by the nominated
Chairman. At that time, some members of the Ruling Party (Shiv Sena)
arrived and engaged in heated exchanges. When the House resumed,
the nominated Chairman referred to the fact that some members of the
Shiv Sena were present in the chamber and involved in heated exchanges,
but no action was being taken against them as both the sections had
apologised to each other. According to the petitioners, when the House
resumed, by way of courtesy a sincere apology was graciously tendered
by the Leader of Opposition to the Chairman for the earlier incident
while adverting to the fact that none of the MLAs belonging to the
Opposition Party (BJP) including the petitioners herein had abused the
Chairman. Soon thereafter, to the utter surprise of the petitioners (and
other members of the Opposition Parties), the Minister for Parliamentary
Affairs moved a resolution for initiating action against 12 MLAs of the
ASHISH SHELAR & ORS. v. THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY & ANR. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
BJP for having committed contempt of the House. That motion was
tabled in the House and the Chairman was called upon to do the needful.
The Chairman then called upon the House to pass the said resolution.
The House in turn passed that resolution by majority votes after it was
put to vote at 14:40 hours on 5.7.2021. The same reads thus:
"P.H.: Contempt of the House by objectionable behavior
M.H.: Resolution of Minister for Parliamentary Affairs regarding
suspension of M.L.A.s for Contempt of the House due to
objectionable behavior.
1) Dr. Sanjay Kute,
2) Adv. Ashish Shelar,
3) Shri Abhimanyu Pawar
4) Shri Girish Mahajan
5) Shri Atul Bhatkhalkar
6) Adv. Parag Alavani,
7) Shri Harish Pimple
8) Shri Ram Satpute,
9) Shri Jaikumar Rawal,
10) Shri Yogesh Sagar,
11) Shri Narayan Kuche,
12) Shri Kritikumar @ Bunty Bhangdiya, M.L.A.
Adv. Anil Parab (Minister for Parliamentary Affairs): Hon'ble
Speaker, I wish to move the following resolution with your kind
permission.
"On 5th July 2021 when the business of the House was being
conducted, Hon'ble M.L.As Dr. Sanjay Kute, Adv. Ashish Shelar,
Sarvashree Abhimanyu Pawar, Girish Mahajan, Atul Bhatkhalkar,
Adv. Parag Alvani, Sarvashree Harish Pimple, Ram Satpute,
Jaikumar Rawal, Yogesh Sagar, Narayan Kuche, Kirtikumar @
Bunty Bhangdia misbehaved in the House, addressed the Chairman
in the Speaker's Chair unparliamentary language, tried to take
the mike and Rajdand, despite repeated warnings, all these
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
777
members misbehaved in the chamber of the Hon'ble Speaker even
after the House was adjourned and abused and manhandled the
Chairman in the Speaker's Chair. Due to the indisciplined and
unbecoming behavior resulting in maligning the dignity of the
House, this House resolves to suspend the membership of
Sarvashree Dr. Sanjay Kute, Adv. Ashish Shelar, Sarvashree
Abhimanyu Pawar, Girish Mahajan, Atul Bhatkhalkar, Adv. Parag
Alvani, Sarvashree Harish Pimple, Ram Satpute, Jaikumar Rawal,
Yogesh Sagar, Narayan Kuche, Kirtikumar @ Bunty Bhangdia
for a period of one year. Similarly, during the period of suspension
they may be restrained from entering into the premises of Vidhan
Bhawan at Mumbai and Nagpur."
Hon'ble Speaker, I request the House to pass this resolution.
Resolution has been tabled.
Chairman in the Speaker's Chair: Now I put this resolution to
vote.
Resolution has been passed after putting it to vote."
6. According to the petitioners, the Leader of Opposition thereafter
wrote four letters to the Deputy Speaker on 7.7.2021 for furnishing
relevant information including CCTV footage, video recording of the
entire proceedings and a copy of the verbatim proceedings of the record
of the Legislative Assembly dated 5.7.2021 and 6.7.2021. Thereafter,
the petitioners also sent letters to the Deputy Speaker requesting him to
furnish relevant material of the proceedings including recording of the
proceedings in the House dated 5.7.2021 and 6.7.2021.
7. Eventually, on 22.7.2021, the petitioners approached this Court
by way of these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, for issuing appropriate writ, order or direction so as to quash and
set aside the impugned resolution dated 5.7.2021 passed by the
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly being unconstitutional and grossly
illegal and for enforcement of their fundamental rights as guaranteed
under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
8. It is urged that the impugned resolution dated 5.7.2021 has
been passed in undue haste and is politically motivated. It is primarily
intended to adversely impact the numbers of the Opposition Party in the
House. It has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to
ASHISH SHELAR & ORS. v. THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY & ANR. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
the petitioners much less calling upon them to offer written explanation.
To buttress this ground, reliance has been placed on a decision of twoJudge Bench of this Court in Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Ors. vs.
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly & Anr.3.
9. It is urged that the events, as unfolded, on the face of it, would
indicate the undue haste in which the impugned resolution came to be
passed within a matter of hours, that too, without granting opportunity to
the petitioners to meet the case against them. This was grossly and
patently violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. For, there was absolutely
no material before the Chairman or the Minister to substantiate the need
for suspending the petitioners, that too for such a long period.
10. Further, even the impugned resolution dated 5.7.2021 does
not refer to any material on the basis of which such extreme step of
suspension had been taken against these petitioners. There is no indication
in the resolution as to how the 12 members (petitioners herein) were
identified from a huge crowd of people and singled out for initiating the
action of suspension. As a matter of fact, the impugned resolution itself
alludes to unruly behaviour on the floor of the House and outside the
chamber of the Speaker. The video footage of the alleged incident, which
is in public domain, shows a large crowd of people and there is absolutely
no way of identifying the 12 MLAs (petitioners herein) who have been
suspended and singled out. As a matter of fact, the Minister who brought
the motion was not even present in the chamber of the Speaker. In a
similar situation, this Court in Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj4 had to quash
the resolution for lack of evidence to identify the suspended members of
the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
11. In the present case, the impugned resolution makes no reference
to any material much less video footage, etc., which has been relied
upon before bringing an action for suspension. Moreover, it is amply
clear from the impugned resolution that the action against the petitioners
was for alleged unruly behaviour/misconduct and not for breach of
privilege that is covered by an independent dispensation. As regards
suspension of a member of the House, as per Rule 53 of the Rules such
action could be initiated "only" by the Speaker after complying with the
principles of natural justice and fair play. The provision, such as Rule 53,
is engrafted to put a check on the majoritarian attitude of the Government.
3 (2016) 6 SCC 82
4 supra at Footnote No.3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
779
The Speaker is expected to act fairly, in particular during the conduct of
proceedings in the House towards both sides, namely, members of the
Ruling Party as well as of the Opposition Party. So to speak, he exercises
quasi-judicial function.
12. It is urged that a motion for unruly behaviour in the House can
never be a subject matter of voting since it would enable the political
party in power to virtually wipe out the opposition for some trivial acts
committed by their members, by suspending as many members of the
Opposition Party. The decision of suspension, therefore, must rest with
the Speaker and not the House. Notably, Rule 53 of the Rules prescribes
a maximum period of suspension not exceeding remainder of the Sessions.
Thus, suspension of the petitioners for a period of one year is grossly
unconstitutional and illegal. If the impugned resolution was allowed to
prevail, nothing would prevent the political party in power (in majority)
to resort to such mechanism and to suspend a large number of members
of Opposition Party upto five years or remainder of the term of the
Legislative Assembly by resorting to voting in the House.
13. It is also urged that the erstwhile Speaker had stepped down,
as a result of which, he ceased to be the Chairman. As such, heated
exchanges allegedly occurring between him and the petitioners outside
the House, would not invite action of suspension, inasmuch as after
stepping down as Speaker, he would continue only as an ordinary MLA.
Further, the Chairman nominated under Rule 8 of the Rules is not
empowered to exercise powers under Rule 53, considering the fact that
there was a Deputy Speaker of the House who could have discharged
the functions of the Speaker after his stepping down or during his absence
as per Article 180 of the Constitution. In that sense, the impugned
resolution dated 5.7.2021 is nullity and non est in the eyes of law, having
passed without authority of law.
14. These writ petitions came up for preliminary hearing on
14.12.2021.