Supreme Court Holds Expulsion From Legislative Council Subject To Judicial Review; Reinstates Member, Treats Expulsion As Suspension

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the Ethics Committee Report recommending the expulsion of a member of the Bihar Legislative Council and the consequential notification relieving him of membership. The petition contested procedural and substantive aspects of the Committee’s report, including denial of material evidence, alleged advancement of hearing dates without notice, and claimed disproportionate punishment.

The Court allowed the petition in part, holding that actions of a legislative committee exercising administrative functions were amenable to judicial review and that Article 212(1) did not bar scrutiny of the decision on grounds other than mere procedural irregularity. The Court emphasised that Constitutional Courts must ensure that legislative actions did not “encroach upon the Fundamental Rights of the members and/or citizens.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 actions of the Legislature, which may encroach upon the Fundamental Rights of the members and/or citizens." The Court further held that the doctrine of proportionality applied to disciplinary measures by legislatures and that expulsion was an extreme measure which “is a grave measure and normally, it should not be taken.” Exercising powers under Article 142, the Court converted the expulsion into a suspension for the period already undergone, reinstated the member with immediate effect, and quashed the Election Commission’s press note calling a by-election.

Background The dispute arose after the petitioner, an MLC and Opposition Chief Whip, allegedly used unparliamentary language and hurled indecent slogans against the Chief Minister during the motion of thanks following the Governor’s address in February 2024. A complaint led the Chairman to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee, which ultimately recorded findings against the petitioner and recommended expulsion on 14.06.2024; the Council adopted that recommendation and the Secretariat issued a notification on 26.07.2024.

The petitioner contended that he was denied material evidence (notably video clips), was not given proper notice when the Committee advanced proceedings, and was therefore condemned unheard; he also argued that the punishment was disproportionate compared to another member who received only a two-day suspension. Senior counsels for the petitioner argued violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21 and mala fides in procedure and substance. Respondents relied on Article 212(1) and the House’s prerogative to regulate its business, asserting that the Committee had afforded reasonable opportunities to be heard and that the majority’s decision in the House was final.

The Court analysed whether Article 212(1) ousted judicial review and concluded it did not apply to administrative disciplinary actions of a legislative committee that affected fundamental rights. The Court surveyed the doctrine of proportionality in domestic and comparative jurisprudence, reiterated that expulsion was an exceptional and grave measure, and identified guiding factors for review — degree of obstruction, impact on dignity of the House, past conduct, remorse or cooperation, availability of lesser measures, and interest of the electorate. Finding the petitioner’s conduct unbecoming and his non-cooperation aggravating, the Court nevertheless held the quantum of punishment to be excessive and disproportionate. Considering the short remaining tenure and to avoid protracted remand, the Court used Article 142 to deem the period of expulsion already undergone as sufficient punishment and ordered immediate reinstatement while directing that no remuneration or monetary benefits would be payable for the disbandment period. The Election Commission’s press note declaring a by-election was quashed and any consequential action was annulled. The Court left open the House’s right to act if misconduct recurred.

Case Details: Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 530 of 2024 (2025 INSC 264) Case Title: Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh versus Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Counsel; Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Counsel (for Respondent Nos.1–5); Mr. Ankit Agarwal (for Election Commission); Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Counsel (for Intervener)