Supreme Court revokes suspension of 12 BJP lawmakers in Maharashtra

The top court said the BJP lawmakers shall be entitled to all consequential benefits after the conclusion of the session in July when they were suspended

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the suspension of 12 Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lawmakers from the Maharashtra assembly for a year, saying it should not have extended beyond one session of the House.

The Supreme Court of India. (HT PHOTO)

A three-judge bench headed by justice AM Khanwilkar held any suspension beyond that period is “substantially illegal”, “irrational” with no basis in law. The bench, also comprising justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, said the lawmakers shall be entitled to all consequential benefits after the conclusion of the session in July.

The lawmakers challenged the suspension calling it a deliberate attempt to suppress dissent in the House and dangerous for democracy.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Mahesh Jethamalani, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, and Siddharth Bhatnagar represented them.

Senior advocate CA Sundaram, who appeared for the state, argued that once it is recognised the legislature has the power to suspend its members, the court could not review the quantum of punishment.

The lawmakers were suspended for “unruly behaviour”. The court noted the assembly’s power to suspend is not doubted. But it added the period of suspension could not be such that it keeps a constituency unrepresented for a period beyond a session and in no event beyond six months within which any vacant seat must be filled.

The lawmakers argued the only means to punish an unruly act of a member of a House is by suspension for not beyond 60 days or expulsion, in which event the seat has to be filled by a fresh election.

A seat can be declared vacant due to a member’s absence without permission for 60 days. The lawmakers submitted that keeping a member suspended beyond this period has a detrimental impact on democracy.

The Speaker was not represented in the proceedings.

The court observed the action of the House was dangerous for democracy. “Absolute power doesn’t mean unbridled power. Who knows this can be a precedent for experimentation. Today it is 12, tomorrow it may be 120. Is it not hitting the basic structure of the Constitution?”