Today, the Supreme Court of India has expressed its concern over the suspension of Raghav Chadha from Rajya Sabha.
The bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra orally remarked that the principle of proportionality had to be kept in mind and that exclusion of the voice of an opposition party was a serious matter.
"We must be very careful about not excluding those voices from the Parliament."
During the hearing, the bench inquired whether Raghav Chadha's actions could be deemed a breach of Parliamentary privilege. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Chandrachud highlighted that, as per the rules of the house, the consent of members is necessary at the stage of appointing them as members of a select committee. Noting that Chadha's sole offense was failing to verify the members' willingness before nominating them for the select committee, CJI Chandrachud questioned whether this could justify an indefinite suspension. He also pointed out that a member who disrupts the house is typically suspended only for the duration of the ongoing session.
CJI Chandrachud also emphasized that Rules 256 and 266 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States are not applicable in the current situation. He inquired whether it is permissible to invoke inherent powers to impose an indefinite suspension on a member in this particular case.
CJI Chandrachud addressed the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, by questioning whether the alleged offense of failing to verify membership consent amounted to a more severe transgression than disrupting the proceedings. He pointed out that when a person disrupts the house, they are typically excluded for the remainder of the session. In this case, the alleged infraction is centered on a lack of verification. CJI Chandrachud emphasized that the concept of proportionality has become an integral aspect of our legal system.
"He did not ascertain the willingness ...That's the only charge against him. He was suspended. Indefinitely. Rules 256 and 266 ex facie have no application. We should also apply the principle of proportionality," CJI said.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Chadha, pointed out that the AAP legislator had already issued an apology for his actions and was willing to provide a written apology to the Chairperson. Simultaneously, he emphasized the importance of directing and regulating the powers associated with Parliamentary privileges to prevent their misuse.
"Mr AG, does this really reduce the dignity of the house? A member who should have verified the inclusion of members in his committee. He doesn't. He says this is like a birthday invitation card. What he obviously meant was that if you want to come, you come. Does this cause a breach of privilege?... it's about representation of people. We must be very careful about not excluding those voices from the parliament. As a constitutional court, this is a serious cause of concern. The indefinite suspension is a cause of concern," CJI said.
The Court adjourned the hearing till Friday and asked directed both the parties to file a compilation of their submissions by Thursday.
"We may not go into the broader question of privileges. Let's not expand it more than necessary. We're not going in the jurisdiction of privileges committee... the only question is of indefinite suspension," CJI said.
Case Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat And Ors.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy