SUNIL KUMAR SINGH vs BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, 2025
Case Title and Citation: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH V. BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2025 INSC 264 (25 February 2025)
Factual Background
The Petitioner, Sunil Kumar Singh, a Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) belonging to the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), challenged his expulsion from the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC). The controversy arose from allegations of unparliamentary conduct on February 13, 2024, during the Governor’s address at the 206th Session of the BLC. The Petitioner and another MLC, Md. Sohaib, approached the well of the House, hurled indecent and derogatory slogans against the Chief Minister, and mocked him by calling him “Paltu Ram”. A complaint was lodged on February 19, 2024, and the matter was referred to the Ethics Committee for inquiry. Md. Sohaib attended the inquiry and expressed regret. However, the Petitioner repeatedly sought exemptions from appearing before the Committee, citing engagements such as the Lok Sabha elections and other commitments. When the Petitioner finally appeared before the Ethics Committee on June 12, 2024, he questioned the Committee’s authority and legitimacy instead of addressing the charges. The Ethics Committee pre-poned its meeting from June 19, 2024, to June 14, 2024, without notifying the Petitioner, and concluded its proceedings. The Committee submitted its report, recommending the Petitioner’s expulsion and Md. Sohaib’s suspension for two days. On July 26, 2024, the BLC adopted the report, leading to the Petitioner’s formal expulsion. The Election Commission subsequently declared a bye-election for the vacant seat, which the Supreme Court stayed on January 15, 2025.
Issue(s)
- Whether the Writ Petition challenging the expulsion is maintainable given Article 212(1) of the Constitution, and if the proceedings of the Ethics Committee are subject to judicial review.
- Whether the Supreme Court, in exercising its writ jurisdiction, possesses the authority to review the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the Legislative Council.
- If such review is permissible, whether the Petitioner’s expulsion was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, and if so, whether it warrants judicial interference.
- Whether the Supreme Court is empowered to determine the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the Petitioner.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, by a Division Bench, quashed the punishment of expulsion, holding it to be disproportionate and excessive. The Court determined that judicial review was permissible and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the Petitioner as a member of the BLC, modifying the punishment to the period of suspension already served.
Reason for the decision
The Court’s rationale was based on the following key findings:
- Judicial Review and Article 212(1): The Court ruled that the restriction under Article 212(1) of the Constitution only bars judicial scrutiny of procedural irregularities in “Proceedings in the Legislature”. However, this article does not shield legislative decisions or administrative actions (like disciplinary actions) from review on grounds of illegality, unconstitutionality, or arbitrariness. The Ethics Committee’s recommendation was considered an administrative function aimed at discipline under Article 208 Rules, not a “Legislative Decision”. Expulsion significantly impacts the Petitioner’s fundamental rights and representative governance, thereby necessitating judicial scrutiny.
- Proportionality of Punishment: The Court confirmed that Constitutional Courts can examine the proportionality of legislative punishments. The doctrine of proportionality mandates that punitive measures must be necessary, balanced, and the least restrictive means available. The Court found that while the Petitioner’s defiant conduct before the Committee was “egregious”, expulsion is a grave measure that must be reserved for exceptional cases. The punishment was deemed excessive and disproportionate when compared to the offense and the two-day suspension awarded to Md. Sohaib, who faced similar initial allegations. Expulsion was also criticized for undermining democratic values by depriving the Petitioner’s constituents of representation.
- Substitution of Punishment (Article 142): While courts typically remand disproportionate punishment cases to the disciplinary authority, the Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 to do “complete justice“. Remanding the matter would cause protracted proceedings, further infringing the Petitioner’s rights, especially since his term expires in 2026. Therefore, the Court modified the punishment by deeming the approximately seven months of expulsion already served as sufficient suspension.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, establishing that the disciplinary action taken by a legislative body, specifically the expulsion of a member, is subject to judicial review regarding its proportionality and legality, despite the procedural shield offered by Article 212(1). Finding the expulsion to be excessively harsh and disproportionate, the Court utilized its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to substitute the penalty, ordering the Petitioner’s immediate reinstatement as an MLC and quashing the resulting bye-election notification.
