Supreme Court reverses expulsion of RJD MLC for mocking Nitish Kumar

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed Bihar Legislative Council’s July 26, 2024 choice to expel RJD chief Sunil Kumar Singh from the House for mocking and mimicking chief minister Nitish Kumar, and stated the punishment was “excessive and disproportionate” to the character of his misconduct.
While a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotishwar Singh got here down closely on Singh for his conduct on the ground of the House and earlier than the ethics committee, it stated it might be simply and correct punishment to transform the greater than 18-month interval of expulsion because the interval of suspension from the House for the RJD chief.
No place for aggression and indecency in Parl proceedings, says SC
Also, whereas asking the House to take him again, the bench stated he wouldn’t be entitled to any remuneration or different financial advantages for the interval of his suspension.
SC had earlier stayed the by-election for the seat that had fallen vacant after Singh’s expulsion.
In a verdict which sought to strike a steadiness between the precept that punishment shouldn’t be disproportionate to the offence and the necessity for decorum and correct conduct in legislatures, the bench stated,
“There is no place for aggression and indecency in the proceedings of Parliament or legislature.
Members are expected to show complete respect and deference towards each other.”
The bench stated, “This expectation is not merely a matter of tradition or formality, it is essential for the effective functioning of democratic processes. It ensures that debates and discussions are productive, focused on the issues at hand, and conducted in a manner that upholds the dignity of the institution.”
It emphasised that the fitting to talk contained in the House couldn’t be harnessed as a device by members to insult, humiliate or defame fellow members, ministers and most significantly, the chair itself.
Simultaneously, Justices Kant and Singh stated the facility of the House to punish a member for misconduct or misdemeanour couldn’t be harsh or disproportionate. “Courts must act decisively to strike down excessively harsh actions that threaten our democratic fabric while simultaneously exercising restraint to avoid encroaching upon the legislative domain. We reiterate that courts must reflect a certain degree of deference to the legislative will and wisdom, intervening only when the action prescribed is so disproportionate that it shocks the intrinsic sense of justice,” Justice Kant stated.
Writing the 50-page judgment analysing the delicate situation of legislative supremacy with regard to proceedings within the House and restricted scope of judicial intervention, Justice Kant stated, “It is imperative that such legislative action remains mindful of the fundamental principle that the purpose of imposing punishment is not to serve as a tool for retribution but rather to uphold and enforce discipline within the House.”
The main goal of the punishment must be to keep up decorum and foster an setting of constructive debate and deliberation, the SC stated.