New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat on a plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and MP Raghav Chadha challenging his suspension from the Rajya Sabha. A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra requested Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist the court in the matter. The apex court said to issue notice to the first respondent (Rajya Sabha Secretariat) returnable on October 30, 2023. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi and advocate Shadan Farasat represented Chadha before the apex court.
During the hearing, Dwivedi argued that in the past 75 years, he has found 11 cases where members, who proposed motions included names of members, who were not willing. In none of these cases was this done, and their names were just dropped. Dwivedi cited the details of other cases where the Rajya Sabha members added names of MPs, who were not willing and later their names, were dropped from proposals.
Farasat submitted that if power is only for the session, it cannot go beyond and the inherent powers cannot be extended to outside the session. Chadha was suspended from Parliament's Upper House on August 11 for “gross violation of the rule, misconduct, defiant attitude and contemptuous conduct".
Also read: SC seeks reply of Chanda Kochhar, her husband on CBI's plea in loan fraud case
The action against him came in response to complaints submitted by four MPs Sasmit Patra, S Phangnon Konyak, M Thambidurai and Narhari Amin. The MPs accused him of including their names on a motion without their consent and a complaint was lodged before Jagdeep Dhankar, the Vice-President and Rajya Sabha chairman. Their names were allegedly added by Chadha on a motion seeking the constitution of a select committee to study the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023.
In his plea before the apex court, Chadha argued that his suspension was in clear violation of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Rajya Sabha Secretariat and its chairperson are respondents in the petition filed before the court.
The plea contended that there exists a categorical prohibition against the suspension of any member for a period exceeding the remainder of the sessions. He has been suspended since the last hour of the monsoon session of Parliament this year. Chadha submitted that he is not able to attend the meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Committee on Subordinate Legislation, which continue their work even when Parliament is not in session.
The plea said in terms of Article 101 (4) of the Constitution, the effect of an indefinite suspension, particularly outside the period of session is to de facto create a vacancy after 60 days, which also shows the prima facie illegality of the impugned action. Chadha’s plea contended that a suspension cannot have the effect of expulsion and create a vacancy in the House.
Raju contended before the bench that a person of the rank of deputy chief minister and holding 18 portfolios, including that of the excise department, accepts bribes then a proper example needs to be set. Raju said there are WhatsApp chats and other communications to show conspiracy of money laundering and also claimed that there was sufficient material to show the offence of money laundering.
The agencies have also claimed that Sisodia allegedly tampered with evidence by destroying his mobile phones and referred to the statement of Delhi businessman Dinesh Arora, an accused-turned-approver. Raju said Arora had told the probe agencies about the bribes Sisodia took and he did not mention earlier about Sisodia, as he was afraid that he would be harmed.
The bench asked whether prior approval has been taken to prosecute Sisodia under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Raju replied in the affirmative. Raju alleged the new excise policy encouraged cartelisation and was designed in such a manner that consumers ended up paying more.
