New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday told Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani that the exclusion of a member of the Opposition from the House is a very serious matter, and he is representative of a viewpoint which may not be consistent with the views of the government and stressed that Parliament must have voices from across the spectrum.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was hearing a plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and MP Raghav Chadha challenging his suspension from the Rajya Sabha. During the hearing, the Chief Justice told the AG, assisting the court, “The question is this a breach of privilege…I tell you the reason for this, he is a member of the Opposition. Exclusion of a member of the Opposition from the House is a very serious matter because he is the representative of his constituency. He is representative of a viewpoint which may not be consistent with the views of the government. Be careful about not excluding those voices from Parliament. The matter is a very serious concern to us as a constitutional court. Parliament must have voices from across the spectrum”.
The Chief Justice stressed that the indefinite suspension is a cause for concern and “I can understand if the Privileges Committee decide it in 15 days or a month, and 75 days have gone. Winter session is coming and this member will be out”.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Raghav Chadha, said his client is willing to apologise before the court. “We will put it….he is ready and willing to apologise to the House, will the chairman accept the apology and obviate the need for the Supreme Court to set the law straight? We will set the law straight, make no mistake about it. We are giving you an option”, the Chief Justice told the AG.
Also read: Delhi High Court grants reprieve to AAP's Raghav Chadha, stays eviction from government-allotted bungalow
The Chief Justice said the court will record Chadha’s apology and he will also communicate his apology in writing to the chairperson. The AG said there is a resolution of the House and the chairperson follows the ruling and stressed that “the resolution was passed by the House and the ruling comes later”. Dwivedi questioned under which law rules were made. The AG said once we are into the nomenclature of the rules, the content of the rules, and their applicability then we enter into a larger debate.
The AG said: “The House is on. The session is disrupted, the Assembly proceedings are disrupted….”. The Chief Justice queried, “Is it worse than the proceedings of the House? Is this really on a higher level? The person, who disrupts the House, is excluded from the rest of the session. In this case, the alleged infraction is he did not verify the consent of the members...some proportionality is now an invented part of our jurisprudence”.
The bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, also pointed out that Rules 256 and 266 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States do not apply in the present case and further queried, if the inherent powers can be invoked to suspend a member indefinitely, and since there is no outer limit prescribed for the privileges committee to conclude its enquiry, would this mean that Chadha remains suspended indefinitely?
Dwivedi said his client has already apologised for the act and expressed readiness to give a written apology to the Rajya Sabha chairperson as well but the process being followed is patently illegal and violative of the law and Constitution, and also patently violative of fundamental rights and conventions of the past and has dangerous consequences. He stressed that whoever is in power, will choose this path.
Citing past incidents in Rajya Sabha, Dwivedi said whenever a member refused consent, that member was dropped from the committee and no punitive action was ever taken against the member who proposed the name.
The AG reiterated that the resolution was passed by the House and the chairperson was only acting on that and also questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interfere with the exercise of privileges by the House. He said the House passes a resolution and the chairperson of the House endorses it, and emphasised that to test the rules of the House on administrative principles would be outside the purview of the court.
The AG said Chadha’s comments to the press also lowered the dignity of the House and took objection to his remark to the media that his proposals were like a "birthday invitation card". The Chief Justice queried, does this reduce the dignity of the house? He says this is like a birthday invitation card and what he meant was that if you want to come, you come, does this cause a breach of privilege? The bench made it clear that it would not go in the jurisdiction of the privileges committee, and the only question before it was of indefinite suspension.
After a detailed hearing, the apex court asked both sides to file a compilation of their submissions and posted the matter for further hearing on Friday. On October 16, the Supreme Court issued notice on Chadha’s challenging his suspension from the Rajya Sabha and requested Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist the court in the matter. Chadha was suspended from the Parliament's Upper House on August 11 for “gross violation of rule, misconduct, defiant attitude and contemptuous conduct".
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.
