# Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 264
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-02-25
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-sunil-kumar-singh-v-bihar-legislative-council-through-secretary-and-ors-38313
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

(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)
Whether this court can review the proportionality of the
punishment imposed by the house in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction?
(3)
If so, whether the petitioner's expulsion is disproportionate
to the misconduct attributed to him and whether it merits
any interference?
(4)
If so, whether this court is empowered to determine the
quantum of punishment that may be imposed on the petitioner?
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.212(1) - Whether the instant Writ
Petition is maintainable in view of Art.212(1) of the Constitution
of India and whether the proceedings of the Ethics Committee
are amenable to judicial review:
Held: The protection u/Art.212(1) operates only with respect to
the 'Proceedings in the Legislature' on the grounds of 'Procedural
Irregularities' - It could not have been the intent of the lawmakers to
circumscribe Constitutional Courts unconditionally from scrutinising
the validity of the actions of the Legislature, which may encroach
upon the Fundamental Rights of the members and/or citizens -
The 'Proceedings in the Legislature' comprise the formal steps,
debates, and motions undertaken to facilitate deliberations within
the House - Art. 212(1) of the Constitution provides immunity for
the manner of such proceedings, and hence, Constitutional Courts
would exercise restraint when such proceedings are called into
question on the grounds of procedural irregularity - A 'Legislative
Decision', on the other hand, is the culmination of the legislative
procedure-the formal expression of the will of the House on a given
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
2131
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v.
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
matter - These decisions of the Legislature, though emanating from
a coordinate branch of Government, are not immune from scrutiny
by Constitutional Courts - In the instant case, the Impugned Report
recommending the expulsion of the Petitioner was made by the
Ethics Committee in the discharge of its administrative functions -
The present action of the Ethics Committee is purely administrative
in nature, aimed at enforcing discipline and ethical standards
amongst the members of the House - It is well established that
administrative actions, even when undertaken by legislative bodies
or their committees, are subject to judicial review where they affect
the rights and interests of individuals - In this context, the present
action resulting in civil consequences for the Petitioner, cannot be
immune from judicial review under the pretext of legislative privilege.
[Paras 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21]
Punishment - Proportionality of punishment - Can the Courts
examine the proportionality of punishment imposed on a
member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by
the House:
Held: The doctrine of proportionality is fundamentally embedded
in the concept of fairness in action across domestic, foreign, and
international legal systems - This principle ensures that measures
taken are appropriate, necessary, and balanced in relation to the
objectives they seek to achieve - There is no absolute bar on the
Constitutional Courts to examine the proportionality of the punishment
imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken
by the House - By focusing on the proportionality of punishment,
courts must ensure that justice aligns with constitutional values and
societal norms, thereby upholding the integrity of the democratic
process - At this point, it must be added that the determination of
what constitutes a disproportionate measure is inherently complex
and context-dependent - Such assessment requires a nuanced
scrutiny of the specific circumstances surrounding each case -
This means that a one-size-fits-all definition is impractical while
adjudicating proportionality and the courts must exerci

## Text

_Characters 0–39,747 of 79,322. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39747 for what follows._

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2130 : 2025 INSC 264
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh
v.
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 530 of 2024)
25 February 2025
[Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(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)
Whether this court can review the proportionality of the
punishment imposed by the house in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction?
(3)
If so, whether the petitioner's expulsion is disproportionate
to the misconduct attributed to him and whether it merits
any interference?
(4)
If so, whether this court is empowered to determine the
quantum of punishment that may be imposed on the petitioner?
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.212(1) - Whether the instant Writ
Petition is maintainable in view of Art.212(1) of the Constitution
of India and whether the proceedings of the Ethics Committee
are amenable to judicial review:
Held: The protection u/Art.212(1) operates only with respect to
the 'Proceedings in the Legislature' on the grounds of 'Procedural
Irregularities' - It could not have been the intent of the lawmakers to
circumscribe Constitutional Courts unconditionally from scrutinising
the validity of the actions of the Legislature, which may encroach
upon the Fundamental Rights of the members and/or citizens -
The 'Proceedings in the Legislature' comprise the formal steps,
debates, and motions undertaken to facilitate deliberations within
the House - Art. 212(1) of the Constitution provides immunity for
the manner of such proceedings, and hence, Constitutional Courts
would exercise restraint when such proceedings are called into
question on the grounds of procedural irregularity - A 'Legislative
Decision', on the other hand, is the culmination of the legislative
procedure-the formal expression of the will of the House on a given
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
2131
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v.
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
matter - These decisions of the Legislature, though emanating from
a coordinate branch of Government, are not immune from scrutiny
by Constitutional Courts - In the instant case, the Impugned Report
recommending the expulsion of the Petitioner was made by the
Ethics Committee in the discharge of its administrative functions -
The present action of the Ethics Committee is purely administrative
in nature, aimed at enforcing discipline and ethical standards
amongst the members of the House - It is well established that
administrative actions, even when undertaken by legislative bodies
or their committees, are subject to judicial review where they affect
the rights and interests of individuals - In this context, the present
action resulting in civil consequences for the Petitioner, cannot be
immune from judicial review under the pretext of legislative privilege.
[Paras 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21]
Punishment - Proportionality of punishment - Can the Courts
examine the proportionality of punishment imposed on a
member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by
the House:
Held: The doctrine of proportionality is fundamentally embedded
in the concept of fairness in action across domestic, foreign, and
international legal systems - This principle ensures that measures
taken are appropriate, necessary, and balanced in relation to the
objectives they seek to achieve - There is no absolute bar on the
Constitutional Courts to examine the proportionality of the punishment
imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken
by the House - By focusing on the proportionality of punishment,
courts must ensure that justice aligns with constitutional values and
societal norms, thereby upholding the integrity of the democratic
process - At this point, it must be added that the determination of
what constitutes a disproportionate measure is inherently complex
and context-dependent - Such assessment requires a nuanced
scrutiny of the specific circumstances surrounding each case -
This means that a one-size-fits-all definition is impractical while
adjudicating proportionality and the courts must exercise their
discretion in a prudent and judicious manner. [Paras 54, 62, 63]
Punishment - Proportionality of punishment - Guiding principles
for courts to consider while scrutinising the proportionality of
actions taken by the House against its member(s):
Held: These parameters are not exhaustive, as considerations
will inevitably vary from case to case - An indicative list of such
2132
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
parameters includes:(a) Degree of obstruction caused by the member
in the proceedings of the House; (b) Whether the behaviour of the
member has brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire House;
(c) The previous conduct of the erring member; (d) The subsequent
conduct of the erring member, such as expressing remorse,
cooperation with the institutional scrutiny mechanism; (e) Availability
of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the delinquent member; (f)
Whether crude expressions uttered are deliberate and motivated or a
mere outcome of language largely influenced by the local dialect; (g)
Whether the measure adopted is suitable for furthering the desired
purpose; and (h) Balancing the interest of society, particularly the
electorates, with those of the erring members. [Para 64]
Punishment - Expulsion - Proportionality of Petitioner's
Expulsion - Was the Petitioner's expulsion proportionate to
the offence alleged against him, and whether it merits any
interference:
Held: The punishment of expulsion imposed on the Petitioner is
harsh and disproportionate - While the petitioner's conduct in the
house was abhorrent and his subsequent demeanour before the
ethics committee was evasive and high-handed, the house ought
to exercise magnanimity as custodian of constitutional values - The
punishment of expulsion was highly excessive and disproportionate
to the nature of the misconduct - Disproportionate punishments
are violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in Arts.14 and
21 of the constitution - A more measured and balanced approach
would have sufficed to address the misconduct while upholding the
dignity and decorum of the House. [Paras 68-71, 75-78]
Constitution of India - Art.142 - Quantum of Punishment -
Power of Supreme Court u/Art.142:
Held: In ordinary course, when a court concludes that the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate
to the gravity of the misconduct, it does not generally substitute
its own assessment of the appropriate penalty - Instead, the
established judicial approach is to remit the matter to the
disciplinary authority for reconsideration - In exercise of its powers
u/Art.142 of the constitution, this court is vested with the authority
to substitute the punishment where the facts and circumstances
so warrant - The expulsion of the Petitioner is disproportionate
and undoubtedly infringes his Fundamental Rights guaranteed
u/Art.14 of the Constitution - Furthermore, the expulsion also has
a direct impact on a vast number of stakeholders, particularly the
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
2133
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v.
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
electorates he represents - The Petitioner has already undergone
almost 7 months of expulsion - If this matter is now remanded
to the Ethics Committee for reconsideration of the appropriate
punishment, the ensuing process is likely to be protracted,
which might deprive the Petitioner in participating in the ensuing
Sessions - Balancing the competing considerations, the period of
expulsion already undergone by the Petitioner is deemed to be
considered as a period of his suspension; and in view of this Court,
constitutes sufficient punishment for the misconduct displayed by
him - As a segue thereto, the Petitioner is directed to be reinstated
as member of the BLC with immediate effect. [Paras 79-84, 86]
Case Law Cited
Ashish Shelar and Ors. v. The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly
and Anr. [2022] 18 SCR 762 : (2022) 12 SCC 273; Dev Singh v.
Punjab Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 9;
LIC of India v. R. Dhandapani [2005] Supp. 5 SCR 488 : (2006) 13
SCC 613; Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western
Telecom Project BSNL & Ors. [2013] 14 SCR 430 : (2014) 14
SCC 731; Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, City & Industrial
Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr. v. Shishir
Realty (P) Ltd. & Ors. [2021] 13 SCR 190 : (2022) 16 SCC 527;
Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. [2003] Supp.
6 SCR 1235 : (2004) 2 SCC 130; Chairman, All India Railway
Recruitment Board & Anr. v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors. [2010] 6
SCR 291 : (2010) 6 SCC 614; Modern Dental College & Research
Centre & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors. [2016] 3 SCR 579 : (2016) 7
SCC 353; Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India & Ors. [2020] 1 SCR
812 : (2020) 3 SCC 637; Association for Democratic Reforms &
Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2024] 2 SCR 420 : 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 150; Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank
of India [2020] 2 SCR 297 : (2020) 10 SCC 274; Shivu & Anr. v.
Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Anr. [2007] 2 SCR
555 : (2007) 4 SCC 713; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1983]
1 SCR 145 : (1982) 3 SCC 24; Lehna v. State of Haryana [2002]
1 SCR 377 : (2002) 3 SCC 76; Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control
Bureau & Ors., 2024 INSC 479 : [2024] 7 SCR 97; Munish Bhasin
and Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. [2009] 2 SCR
806 : (2009) 4 SCC 45; Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi
and Ors. [2022] 18 SCR 494 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 897; Parvez
Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2020] 11
SCR 117 : (2020) 10 SCC 77; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
[1978] 2 SCR 621 : (1978) 1 SCC 248; Arnesh Kumar v. State of
2134
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Bihar & Anr. [2014] 8 SCR 128 : (2014) 8 SCC 273; Raja Ram
Pal v. The Hon'ble Speaker of Lok Sabha & Ors. [2007] 1 SCR
317 : (2007) 3 SCC 184; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.
[1988] 1 SCR 512 : (1987) 4 SCC 611; Deputy Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan & Ors. v. J. Hussain [2013] 9 SCR
898 : (2013) 10 SCC 106; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and
Ors. [1995] Supp. 4 SCR 644 : (1995) 6 SCC 749 - relied on.
The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and
Secretary of State for Health ex parte Fedesa et al [1990]
ECR I-4023 [13] - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Cf. G. LübbeWolff, The Principle of Proportionality in the Case-Law
of the German Federal Constitutional Court, Human Rights Law
Journal 2014, vol. 34, pg. 12; Sauter W. Proportionality in EU Law:
A Balancing Act? Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies,
2013;15:439-466; Kathleen M. Sullivan, The Justices of Rules and
Standards, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 22, 61 (1992); Erwin Chemerinsky,
Constitutional Law 529-31 (Aspen Pub. 2001).
List of Websites
Principle of Proportionality, European Union, https://www.
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=h
ttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/principle-ofproportionality.html&ved=2ahUKEwjR9aun6NSLAxXhzDgGHTA
sHtcQFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw14i3cuEILjPFx1jQZjNOuR.
List of Keywords
Article 212(1) of Constitution of India; Ethics Committee;
Judicial Review; Punishment; Proportionality of the punishment;
Maintainability of writ petition; Constitutional Courts; Misconduct;
Expulsion; Misdemeanour; Legislature; Proceedings in Legislature;
Legislative Decision; Immunity; Constitutional Supremacy;
Expression unius est exclusion alterius; Irregularity of procedure;
Administrative functions; Legislative function; Legislative privilege.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
530 of 2024
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
2135
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v.
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Advs., Yash
Johri, Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Ms. Shristi Sinha, Vishal Sinha,
Pradyut Kashyap.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs., Navin Kumar Jha,
Aditya Prakash Sahay, Sushil Kumar Singh, Akash Dikshit, Chandan
Kumar, Divyansh Mishra, Chandratanay Chaube, Ankit Agarwal,
Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Ashish Shukla.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.
1.
The Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, laying challenge to Report No.
1/2024 dated 14.06.2024 (Impugned Report), submitted by the Ethics
Committee of the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) recommending
his expulsion as a Member of Legislative Council (MLC). The
consequential notification dated 26.07.2024 relieving the Petitioner
from the membership of the BLC issued by the BLC's Secretariat
(Impugned Notification), is also assailed.
A.
Factual Matrix
2.
The present controversy arises from allegations of unparliamentary
conduct by the Petitioner, including the use of derogatory expressions
in his capacity as an MLC within the House of the BLC. This conduct
of the Petitioner prompted the initiation of proceedings against him by
the Ethics Committee. The allegations were found to be substantiated,
leading the Ethics Committee to recommend the Petitioner's expulsion
from the BLC. Subsequently, a resolution to that effect was passed
by a majority of the members of BLC, formalising the decision to
expel and relieve the Petitioner. The facts giving rise to the present
petition are set out hereinbelow:
2.1. The Petitioner is a member of the political party known as the
Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). He was elected as a member of
2136
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the BLC on 29.06.2020 for a period of six years. The Petitioner
was also nominated as the Chief Whip by the RJD in the BLC.
2.2. The elections for the 17th Legislative Assembly in the State
of Bihar were held in November 2020, wherein a coalition
government, comprising the Janata Dal (United) (JDU) led by
the incumbent Chief Minister along with the RJD and the Indian
National Congress (INC), was formed. This coalition, however,
wedged apart in January 2024, and a new alliance between
the JDU and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was entered
into to form the Government in the State.
2.3. Following these developments, the Hon'ble Governor of Bihar
was scheduled to deliver his address on 13.02.2024, at the 206th
Session of the BLC. As soon as the Governor's address was
completed and during the motion of thanks, the Petitioner and
another MLC, Md. Sohaib approached the well of the House
and hurled indecent slogans against the Chief Minister. They
mocked him as "Paltu Ram", imitated his body language and
sarcastically remarked that "the man who has not contested a
single Mukhiya election till date is the Chief Minister of Bihar".
The Petitioner then alluded to the Chief Minister as an 'expert
in manipulations' and insinuated that he was "just like a snake
sheds its skin every year". This indecorous fracas led to the
proceedings of the House being indubitably obstructed, followed
by a complaint on 19.02.2024 lodged against the Petitioner and
Md. Sohaib before the Chairman of the BLC by a fellow MLC
belonging to the Ruling Party JDU.
2.4. The Chairman of BLC issued a letter to the Petitioner and Md.
Sohaib informing them about the complaint, which was then
forwarded to the Ethics Committee for necessary enquiry.
The letter also required both the MLCs to remain present and
join the enquiry proceedings on 03.05.2024 before the Ethics
Committee.
2.5. Md. Sohaib joined the enquiry proceedings on 03.05.2024 and
expressed regret for his conduct in writing and further assured
a display of restraint and caution in the future.
2.6. The Petitioner, in stark contrast, did not appear before the Ethics
Committee on the date fixed and instead sought exemption,
citing engagements and scheduling conflicts due to the onset
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
2137
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v.
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
of the Lok Sabha elections. The Petitioner did not join even the
subsequent proceedings and continued seeking exemption from
appearing for one or the other reason, which are delineated for
the sake of convenience:
Date of
proceedings
Requests from Petitioner
Response of the
Ethics Committee
03.05.2024
 •
The Petitioner was a star
campaigner for his party
in the ongoing Lok Sabha
elections and was in charge
of the Saran Constituency.
Exempted and
directed to appear on
22.05.2024
22.05.2024
 •
Busy on account of
himself being a candidate
in elections of the Board
of Directors, National
Agricultural Cooperative
Marketing Federation of
India (NAFAED).
Exempted and
directed to be present
on 31.05.2024 as a
last opportunity.
31.05.2024
 •
Tried to place the onus
on the Ethics Committee
by stating: "I do not know
what is the hurry, haste
and impatience that the
Committee has again fixed
the date 31.05.2025 to
present the opinion".
 •
He demanded information
regarding the charges
against him and the
necessary evidence
corroborating such
allegations.
Exempted, but the
request regarding the
relevant documents
was denied on
the grounds of
confidentiality;
however, Petitioner
was permitted to
peruse the same
on the next date
of proceeding, i.e.
06.06.2024.
06.06.2024
 •
Sought exemption on the
grounds of his father's
illness.
One last opportunity
was given to the
Petitioner to present
his side, and the
Ethics Committee
resolved to take
action in case the
Petitioner did not turn
up for proceedings
scheduled on
12.06.2024.
2138
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2.7.
The Petitioner eventually appeared before the Ethics Committee
for the first time on 12.06.2024, when a copy of the charges
was duly supplied to him. The Petitioner instead of addressing
the Ethics Committee on those charges, started questioning
its very authority and legitimacy. Having chosen to continue
his pattern of defiance, the Petitioner communicated to the
Ethics Committee that it was not competent to question him,
given his position as the Opposition's Chief Whip. Following
a heated discussion between them, the Ethics Committee
concluded the proceedings without the Petitioner having
addressed any of the charges levelled against him. The next
date of the proceedings was then fixed on 19.06.2024.
2.8.
The Ethics Committee, in somewhat of an unusual manner,
preponed the proceedings from 19.06.2024 to 14.06.2024
without any notice to the Petitioner. The Ethics Committee
then discussed the behaviour of the Petitioner during the
previous proceedings and concluded that his conduct was
wholly unjustified. The Ethics Committee further mooted the
demeanour of both the MLCs, i.e. the Petitioner and Md.
Sohaib and closed the proceedings.
2.9.
The Ethics Committee thereafter submitted the Impugned
Report, recommending the expulsion of the Petitioner from
membership of the BLC. As regards to Md. Sohaib, the Ethics
Committee recommended his suspension for two days in the
upcoming Session.
2.10. The Ethics Committee's report, along with its recommendations
for taking punitive measures against the Petitioner as well
as Md. Sohaib was presented and discussed on 26.07.2024
in the House. After due deliberations, the majority of the
House accepted the recommendations and consequently,
the Petitioner was expelled from his membership of the BLC
forthwith. Md. Sohaib, on the other hand, was suspended for
the first two days of the 208th Session of the House.
2.11. As a sequel thereto, the Secretariat of BLC issued the
Impugned Notification dated 26.07.2024, relieving the Petitioner
from membership of the BLC and notifying the resultant
vacancy caused by such expulsion. The aforesaid measures
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
2139
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v.
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
have prompted the Petitioner to approach this Court through
these writ proceedings.
2.12. We may hasten to add that during the pendency of this petition,
Respondent No. 6, Election Commission of India (Election
Commission), issued a Press Note dated 30.12.2024
declaring the bye-election for the seat held by the Petitioner
before his expulsion. The election process was resolved to
be completed before 25.01.2025. Considering the impact of
the notified election on the outcome of this petition, vide order
dated 15.01.2025 the declaration of the result of such byeelection was stayed.
B.
Contentions on behalf of the Petitioner
3.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned
Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner vehemently
contended that the Impugned Report and the consequential
Notification are illegal and unconstitutional. They argued that the
actions against the Petitioner were actuated by mala fide and suffered
from gross illegalities, both in procedure and substance.
4.
Dr. Singhvi and Mr. Sankarnarayanan canvassed the following
grounds in support of their submissions:
a)
The expulsion of the Petitioner from the membership of BLC
was violative of the principles of natural justice, fair and just play,
as the relevant material, including the video clip containing his
transgressions were not furnished to him. The Petitioner was
denied access to the material evidence on the pretext that the
proceedings of the House are confidential and could only be
perused by him during the meetings of the Ethics Committee.
The Petitioner was thus caused inexorable prejudice in the
matter of preparing his defence.
b)
The Ethics Committee explicitly assured the Petitioner on
12.06.2024 that charges would be framed only after receiving
all the relevant material, for which the next date of proceeding
was fixed on 19.06.2024. The Ethics Committee, however
unilaterally and deliberately advanced the date of hearing to
14.06.2024 without his knowledge. The Petitioner has thus been
condemned unheard, and in a manner which reeks of malice
and amounts to gross illegality.
2140
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
c)
Not only this, the Ethics Committee's report dated 14.06.2024
was circulated selectively with the members belonging to the
Ruling Party, and was kept confidential from the members
belonging to the Opposition Parties. Such members being in
the minority could not effectively participate in the proceedings.
d)
In any event, the Petitioner has been hammered with severe
punishment, disproportionate to the attributed misconduct and
also in comparison to another MLC Md. Sohaib, who, despite
facing somewhat similar allegations, was awarded suspension
of two days from the upcoming Session.
e)
It is settled law that a 'graded' approach is required where
the House is disciplining its members. Deviation from such
an approach in the case of the Petitioner is not based on any
sufficient material, and the disproportionate punishment imposed
on him falls foul of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles
14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
C.
Contentions on behalf of Respondents
5.
Contrarily, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing
Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, strongly opposed the instant Writ Petition
urging that the Impugned Report and Notification expelling the
Petitioner from the BLC are based on concrete evidence. He submitted
that the action against the Petitioner was taken following due process
of law, which has been approved by the majority of the House and
thus warrants no interference.
6.
In this vein, while opposing the Writ Petition, Mr. Kumar advanced
the following submissions:
a)
At the outset, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is liable
to be dismissed in terms of Article 212 (1) of the Constitution
of India, which 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'.
b)
It is the prerogative of the House to regulate its Business and
Procedure, and the decision so taken cannot be tested on the
bedrock of proportionality. The issue of proportionality should
be left to the wisdom of the House. In other words, the Court
cannot examine the quantum of punishment imposed upon the
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
2141
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v.
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
Petitioner, as such a recourse would amount to reviewing the
validity of the proceedings of the House.
c)
The Ethics Committee adhered to the principles of audi alteram
partem as the Petitioner was given reasonable opportunity
of being heard. Such a plea is fortified by the fact that the
Ethics Committee asked the Petitioner to join its proceedings
on 03.05.2024, 22.05.2024, 31.05.2024, 06.06.2024 and
12.06.2024. In fact, it is the Petitioner who deliberately and for
reasons best known to him, failed to avail such opportunity.
He kept on either avoiding the proceedings or threatening the
Ethics Committee with one or the other objection until 12.06.2024
when he entered appearance for the first time.
d)
The Petitioner was duly served with the list of charges as soon as
he appeared on 12.06.2024. He, however instead of addressing
the charges, questioned the very legality and the authority of
the Ethics Committee itself. The Petitioner, being a member of
the House, is deemed to have knowledge of the formation of
the Ethics Committee under Article 208 of the Constitution and
the manner in which its proceedings are conducted.
e)
The Petitioner cannot raise the plea of proportionality and seek
parity with the other MLC, Md. Sohaib for the reason that the
latter duly appeared before the Ethics Committee and cooperated
in the proceedings. On the other hand, the Petitioner remained
defiant and disregarded the prescribed procedure. Being the
Chief Whip of the Opposition, he held a greater responsibility
towards the policies, rules and constitutional authority of the
House.
f)
The Petitioner has a habit of degrading the authority of the
House through his indecent and unparliamentary acts for which
he was earlier also suspended from the House on 28.03.2022
in the 200th Session of the BLC.
7.
Mr. Ankit Agarwal, counsel for Respondent No. 6-the Election
Commission, submitted that in view of Section 151A of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act), the Commission was
duty-bound to notify the elections as soon as the vacancy occurred.
He further submitted that the Election Commission had nothing to
add on the merits of the case.
2142
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
8.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel, entered appearance
for the Intervener, Shri Lalan Prasad, who is the aspirant for election
to the MLC seat declared vacant upon the expulsion of the Petitioner.
She also asserted that the bye-election declared by the Election
Commission for the vacant seat aligned with Section 151A of the
RP Act. According to her Section 151A of the RP Act is triggered the
moment a 'legal vacancy' occurs, mandating the immediate election
to fill up the same.
D.
Issues for Consideration
9.
Having traversed the sequence of events as they emanated, the
contentions put forth on behalf of the parties as well as the material
on record, we are of the considered view that the following vital
issues require analysis:
i.
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?
ii.
Can this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction review the
proportionality of the punishment imposed by the House?
iii.
If so, whether the Petitioner's expulsion is disproportionate
to the misconduct attributed to him and whether it merits any
interference?
iv.
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?
E.
Analysis
E.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?
10. The Respondents have raised an objection against the very
maintainability of the Writ Petition in view of Article 212(1) of the
Constitution of India. Since this argument strikes at the core of the
instant matter, we find it imperative to address this contention at
the very outset. Article 212 (1) of the Constitution of India bars any
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
2143
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v.
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
enquiry regarding any proceeding in the Legislature on the grounds
of alleged irregularity of procedure.
11. Having given our thoughtful consideration, we find ourselves unable
to concur with the contentions asseverated by the Respondents that
the decision of the Ethics Committee is shielded by the immunity
proffered under Article 212(1). We say so because it is no longer
res integra that there is no absolute bar on calling into question the
decisions taken by the Legislature. The protection under Article 212(1)
operates only with respect to the 'Proceedings in the Legislature'
on the grounds of 'Procedural Irregularities'. It could not have been
the intent of the lawmakers to circumscribe Constitutional Courts
unconditionally from scrutinising the validity of the actions of the
Legislature, which may encroach upon the Fundamental Rights of
the members and/or citizens.
12. To simplify the understanding of the embargo postulated under
Article 212(1), we deem it appropriate to distinguish the terms-
'Proceedings in the Legislature' and 'Legislative Decision'. These
terms represent distinct concepts, each serving a different function
in the law-making process.
13. To further explicate, the 'Proceedings in the Legislature' comprise
the formal steps, debates, and motions undertaken to facilitate
deliberations within the House. It is a structured mechanism that
ensures due consideration of a proposed measure, allowing for
discussion, amendment, and scrutiny before reaching a final
resolution. These procedural steps are not ends in themselves but
are designed to channel legislative discourse towards a definitive
outcome. Article 212(1) of the Constitution provides immunity for the
manner of such proceedings, and hence, Constitutional Courts would
exercise restraint when such proceedings are called into question
on the grounds of procedural irregularity.
14. A 'Legislative Decision', on the other hand, is the culmination of the
legislative procedure-the formal expression of the will of the House
on a given matter. While Proceedings of the Legislature provide the
framework within which members exercise their deliberative functions,
the Legislative Decision is the authoritative determination that
follows such deliberation. These decisions of the Legislature, though
emanating from a coordinate branch of Government, are not immune
from scrutiny by Constitutional Courts. Judicial review of Legislative
2144
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Decisions is not an encroachment upon legislative dominion but a
necessary safeguard to uphold constitutional supremacy.
15. In this regard, we deem it apposite to underscore the applicability of
the principle of 'expression unius est exclusion alterius', namely, that
whatever has not been included has, by implication, been excluded.
Applying the aforesaid principle, we have no doubt in concluding
that the prohibition under Article 212(1) operates only with respect
to the scrutiny of 'Proceedings in the Legislature' on the touchstone
of 'Irregularity of Procedure'. It does not oust the power of judicial
review of the decisions of the Legislature, whether Legislative or
Administrative, on the grounds of illegality or unconstitutionality.
16. Constitutional courts are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring
the lawfulness of the decisions of the Legislature rather than
substituting their judgment to decide the rights of the parties. A
decision-making authority, be it the Legislature or otherwise, while
exercising its powers, must act within the limits prescribed by the
Constitution. Any determination by the authority concerned, if found to
be in excess of its constitutional authority or violative of Fundamental
Rights, is subject to judicial probe. Such overarching decisions cannot
be sustained to preserve integrity in the legal system by preventing
excess and abuse of power.
17. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, the Impugned Report
recommending the expulsion of the Petitioner was made by the
Ethics Committee in the discharge of its administrative functions.
These functions have been assigned in the Rules framed by the
State Legislature under Article 208 of the Constitution. The Rules so
enacted govern the internal functioning, discipline of the House and
the procedure by which the House regulates its affairs. However, such
administrative actions, even though referable to the Rules formulated
under Article 208 of the Constitution, do not constitute the legislative
functions of the House. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs,
the legislative functions pertain to law-making, deliberation, and policy
formulation, whereas the present action of the Ethics Committee is
purely administrative in nature, aimed at enforcing discipline and
ethical standards amongst the members of the House.
18. The distinction between legislative and administrative functions is
well recognized in constitutional jurisprudence. When a legislative
body frames rules under Article 208 and subsequently enforces them
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
2145
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v.
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
through disciplinary measures, such enforcement is an exercise of
administrative power rather than legislative power.
19. It is well established that administrative actions, even when
undertaken by legislative bodies or their committees, are subject to
judicial review where they affect the rights and interests of individuals.
In fact, this Court in Ashish Shelar and Ors. v. The Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly and Anr.1 has held that the substantive
disciplinary or rationality of the 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.
20. There can thus be no doubt that if such an administrative decision is
found to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of constitutional rights,
it is open to judicial intervention in the same manner as any other
executive action of the State. Determining whether an impugned
action or breach is an exempted irregularity or justiciable illegality is
a matter of judicial interpretation and would undoubtedly fall within
the ambit of Constitutional Courts.
21. We also clarify here that the scrutiny in the instant Writ Petition
pertains to the recommendation of the Ethics Committee subsequently
ratified by the majority of the House. This Court is not concerned
with the procedure adopted either by the Ethics Committee or the
House while making or acting on such recommendation. In this
context, the present action resulting in civil consequences for the
Petitioner, cannot be immune from judicial review under the pretext
of legislative privilege.
22. We cannot be ignorant that the grounds raised before us traverse
beyond mere procedural irregularity and challenge the Petitioner's
expulsion on the footing of proportionality. Needless to say, the
imposed punishment has a significant impact on the Petitioner's
Fundamental Rights and a chilling effect on the representative
democratic framework of our society, issues that we have dealt with
in greater detail, in the later parts of this judgement.
23. Consequently, on an overall consideration of legal position, we are of
the view that the Respondent's argument qua maintainability of the
Writ Petition must fail. We hold that the action of the Ethics Committee
1
Ashish Shelar and Ors. v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and Anr. (2022) 12 SCC 273.
2146
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
neither forms part of the 'Proceedings of the Legislature' nor is it
tantamount to a 'Legislative Decision'. Accordingly, entertaining the
instant petition would not fall foul of the restrictions imposed by Article
212 (1) of the Constitution.
E.2. Can the Courts examine the proportionality of punishment
imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action
taken by the House?
24. Having held that the instant Writ Petition is maintainable, it would
now be apposite to address the preliminary question of plausibility
of judicial interference in the issue concerning the proportion of
punishment, when examining the validity of the action taken by the
House. We will undertake the analysis of this issue through a twopronged approach: (i) the relevance and nature of the 'doctrine of
proportionality'; and (ii) the role of Constitutional Courts in reviewing
a decision taken by the House.
E.2.1. The Doctrine of Proportionality: A dynamic precept
25. The expression 'proportion' is derived from the Latin term proportio,
which corresponds to comparative size, number or degree. The
'doctrine of proportionality' essentially signifies that any action should
be steeped in reason or logic. This concept highlights the need
for clear justification in decision-making, asserting that decisions
made without sufficient objective reasoning are often at odds with
intended goals. In order to holistically understand the 'doctrine of
proportionality' and the manner in which it is applied, it is, therefore,
imperative to examine its disposition in: (i) the domestic sphere; and
(ii) in international jurisprudence.
E.2.1.1 The Domestic Sphere
26. The doctrine of proportionality in Indian jurisprudence is guided by
the principle of selecting the most appropriate and least restrictive
measures to achieve the intended objective. The courts' role is
limited to ensuring a proper balance between the adverse effects of
an action or penalty on an individual's rights, liberties, or interests
and the purpose it seeks to serve. In summary, while there may be
a range of discretionary choices, it is within the courts' purview to
assess whether the chosen measure excessively infringes upon rights.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
2147
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v.
Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
27. The test of proportionality, in this context, is satisfied by considering a
myriad of factors such as fairness, justice, absence of vindictiveness,
predominance of objectivity, adherence to natural justice, fair play, and
the recognition of mitigating circumstances etc. These factors, while
not exhaustive, are instrumental in maintaining the delicate balance
between imposing consequences for wrongful actions and ensuring
that such measures do not result in right-based transgressions.
28. In the Indian legal spectrum, the notion of proportionality finds its
place in a multitude of legal issues. To instantiate:
(i)
Service and Labour Laws
29. This Court has time and again highlighted the importance of
proportionality when dealing with the question of punishment or
disciplinary action for misconduct at the workplace, whether it be in
public service or private organisations. The nature of the misconduct,
the circumstances of the occurrence, the history and effect of the
incident are all factors which ought to be taken into consideration.
30. For example, in Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development Corpn.
Ltd.2, a public servant was penalised with dismissal from service
for the offense of misplacing and losing an official file.