E-Paper
SC seeks secretariat reply on Raghav Chadha plea
The Supreme Court has asked for a response from the Rajya Sabha secretariat regarding a petition filed by AAP parliamentarian Raghav Chadha challenging his suspension from the Upper House. Chadha was suspended during the Monsoon Session of Parliament over alleged breach of privilege. The court has scheduled the matter for consideration on October 30. Chadha's lawyers argued that the suspension was invalid and violated his freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Rajya Sabha secretariat on a petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party parliamentarian Raghav Chadha challenging his indefinite suspension from the Upper House.
Chadha was represented in court by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi and advocate Shadan Farasat, who questioned the August 11 order of the Rajya Sabha chairperson suspending the 34-year-old lawmaker during the Monsoon Session of Parliament over alleged breach of privilege.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud issued notice on the petition and posted the matter for consideration on October 30. Since the AAP MP did not seek any interim relief, the court did not consider the issue of staying his suspension.
The bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, “We request the attorney general for India R Venkataramani to assist the court.”
Chadha was accused of not taking the consent of five Rajya Sabha MPs before including their names in a select committee for considering the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023 that seeks to diminish the power of the elected government in the Capital over services. On a complaint by the five MPs alleging breach of privilege, the same was referred to the privileges committee, and Chadha was suspended till the committee submitted its report.
Chadha moved the top court on October 10 and complained that due to his indefinite suspension, he was unable to take part in the various committees of which he is a member.
Dwivedi told the court that once the matter stood referred to the privileges committee, suspension could not be issued and pending enquiry by the committee, the chairperson had no jurisdiction to keep a MP out of the House for an indefinite period.
Even on the facts of the case, Dwivedi pointed out that this is not the first time when the names of members are added to select committee without their consent. “In the past 75 years, there were 11 instances when members included the names in the motion of members who were unwilling. In none of the cases, a case of breach of privilege was made out. The names of non-consenting members was dropped,” Dwivedi said.
Farasat further pointed out that the petitioner was suspended under Rule 256 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Council of States, which allows the chairman to suspend a member “who disregards the authority of the chair”, or “abuses the rules of the council by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business”. He stated that at the highest, suspension under this rule can extend till the end of the session and not beyond. Even the chairman cannot take recourse to his additional powers under the rules to extend the tenure of suspension, he said.
The court formulated the points made by Chadha’s lawyers, who stated that this case also raised the contours of freedom of speech within the House, for which he enjoys immunity under Article 105(1) and the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) available to a member even outside Parliament.
