The case of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) [2025 INSC 264], decided by the Supreme Court of India in February 2025, comes at a critical juncture, deepening the ongoing discourse surrounding the disciplinary powers of legislative bodies and the fundamental principles of democratic governance.
This case, which challenged the expulsion of a sitting Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) for alleged misconduct, brought to the forefront the inherent tension between the need to maintain order and decorum within legislatures and the imperative to safeguard democratic representation and the individual rights of elected representatives. In a way, it is also a check on majority parties trying to have their way in legislative houses on account of their brute majority.
Facts and context
The controversy leading to the legal challenge began with the expulsion of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, an MLC from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), by the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) in July 2024. The expulsion was a consequence of alleged derogatory remarks made by Dr. Singh against the Chief Minister of Bihar, Nitish Kumar, during the budget session in February 2024. These remarks reportedly included sloganeering, using the term “Palturam” to suggest the Chief Minister’s propensity for political alliances, mimicking his body language.
Dr. Singh, a senior RJD leader known for his critical stance against the ruling Janata Dal (United) (JDU)-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coalition, found himself facing disciplinary action in a politically charged environment. Following a complaint, the matter was referred to the Ethics Committee, where Dr. Singh initially sought exemptions from appearance. While another MLC involved in the same incident expressed regret, Dr. Singh reportedly questioned the committee’s authority. Ultimately, the Ethics Committee recommended Dr. Singh’s expulsion, a recommendation that was subsequently ratified by a majority vote in the BLC.
Dr. Singh challenged his expulsion by filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court, arguing that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Arguments
Dr. Singh contended that his remarks were merely a reflection of public opinion and that a much lighter punishment was given to another MLC involved in the same incident [Para 4(d)].
The Bihar Legislative Council, on the other hand, justified the expulsion as necessary to maintain the discipline and decorum of the House, citing Dr. Singh’s history of alleged misconduct and defiance [Para 6(e)]. It was also argued that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide on this issue due to the restrictions imposed by Article 212 on Courts to not inquire into proceedings of the legislature.
Judgement
On Jurisdiction to decide on a matter under Article 212
Article 212 of the Constitution states as follows:
- Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature
(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.
This, by literal reading, means that courts do not have jurisdiction over the proceedings of the legislature. In this case, the decision of the Ethics Committee was on the basis of the proceedings of the legislature meaning that there was an element of confusion as to whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction or not.
The Court clarified this by holding that while Article 212(1) of the Constitution imposes limitations on judicial interference in legislative proceedings based on procedural irregularities, however as in the present case, that this immunity does not extend to substantive decisions, especially those affecting fundamental rights [Para 12].
The Court considered the Ethics Committee’s recommendation for expulsion as an administrative function, thus subject to judicial review based on the principle of proportionality.
On expulsions effect on representative democracy
The democratic process in the legislatures, according to the court, relies on the active participation of all members and a brief absence can impede a member’s ability to contribute to critical legislative discussions and decisions. Therefore, it clarified that, while representation of the constituency is not the sole factor in determining the punishment to be imposed on a member, it nonetheless remains an important aspect that merits due consideration [Para 59].
The court stated that when the punishment inflicted on a member, is prima facie harsh and disproportionate, Constitutional Courts owe a duty to undo such gross injustice and review the proportionality of such disqualifications or expulsions.
The two-judge bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh, held that the expulsion was “highly excessive” and “disproportionate” to the nature of the offense [Para 88].
The Court traced the evolution of the doctrine of proportionality in Indian constitutional law, referencing seminal cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), and Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of M.P. (2016). The Court emphasized the importance of the electorate’s right to representation and deemed the seven months Dr. Singh had already spent out of the council as sufficient punishment, ordering his immediate reinstatement [Para 88(d)].
Doctrines of proportionality and double proportionality
The principle of proportionality, which formed the bedrock of the Supreme Court’s judgment, is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, extending across various legal domains. Rooted in the ideals of fairness and the safeguarding of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, this doctrine dictates that the severity of a punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense.
For example, if someone commits a wrong like smoking a cigarette in a public space, it is a disproportionate action to have her house demolished. Instead, there should be a proportional punishment for such wrong. According to the court, the test of proportionality is satisfied by considering a myriad of non-exhaustive factors such as fairness, justice, absence of vindictiveness, predominance of objectivity, adherence to natural justice, fair play, and the recognition of mitigating circumstances etc.
While this doctrine is used in service matters and administrative law matters, it is also widely used in constitutional matters. In this context, according to the Supreme Court, the test of proportionality largely seeks to identify whether the restriction sought to be placed on the right is proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved by the restriction.
According to the court, the disproportionate punishment of elected representatives by legislative bodies carries significant democratic consequences. Such actions can undermine democratic values by depriving the electorate of their chosen representative, thus silencing their voice in the legislature [Para 58]. Moreover, the fear of excessive disciplinary measures can create a chilling effect on democratic frameworks, according to the court [Para 22].
Since the authority (legislative council) dealing with the question of expulsion of Dr. Singh, by virtue of dealing with him—it is also dealing with the electorate that put him there in that house, their voices, aspirations and democratic rights. The Supreme Court stated as follows in this context:
“While dealing with individuals, such as the Petitioner, it is imperative that disciplinary measures are undertaken with due regard to the principles of proportionality and fairness. The House, in the exercise of its authority to regulate its own proceedings and maintain order, must not lose sight of the necessity for a calibrated and judicious approach.”
The court essentially carved out the jurisdiction for itself by differentiating the proceedings of the legislature and ‘legislative decision’ with the latter not being immune from judicial scrutiny under Article 212. Thereafter, it examined whether expulsion passes the well-established test of proportionality or not. In this context, it stated as follows:
“In fact, this aspect is already prescribed in the Rules governing the procedure of the BLC. In this regard, our attention was drawn to Rule 10, Chapter 36 of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, which provides for the penalties that the Ethics Committee may recommend. A perusal of the provision depicts that if the Committee finds a member violating the code/rules, it may recommend: (a) Censure, (b) Reprimand, (c) Suspension from the House for a specified period; and (d) any other punishment as deemed fit.” [Para 74]
Given the applicable provisions and the underlying objective of imposing penalties on members of the House, we are of the view that the primary purpose of imposing penalties is to discipline the members and ensure the smooth and orderly functioning of the House. A more measured and balanced approach would have sufficed to address the misconduct while upholding the dignity and decorum of the House. [Para 76]
By saying that the (above) punishment Dr. Singh served was sufficient, the Supreme Court directed to reinstate him to legislative council. It also quashed a press note of the Election Commission which spoke about by-elections for Dr. Singh’s constituency.
On guidelines to consider while taking action against members of legislatures
The Court, critically, also laid down an indicative list of parameters to consider while scrutinising the proportionality of actions taken by the House against its member(s). They are as follows:
- Degree of obstruction caused by the member in the proceedings of the House.
- Whether the behaviour of the member has brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire House.
- The previous conduct of the erring member.
- The subsequent conduct of the erring member, such as expressing remorse, cooperation with the institutional scrutiny mechanism.
- Availability of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the delinquent member.
- Whether crude expressions uttered are deliberate and motivated or a mere outcome of language largely influenced by the local dialect.
- Whether the measure adopted is suitable for furthering the desired purpose; and
- Balancing the interest of society, particularly the electorates, with those of the erring members.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates judicial innovation in the interpretation of Article 212 of the Indian Constitution. This case is significant as it clarifies the scope of judicial review over legislative actions concerning the discipline of its members. The Court creatively interpreted Article 212, distinguishing between “proceedings in the legislature” and “legislative decisions”, and held that the latter can be subject to judicial scrutiny, especially when they affect fundamental rights. Whether this proactive nature will seep into other cases like those involving defection is yet to be seen.
The judgement may be read here.
(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation).
Related:
SC: Recent judgment in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, what are police powers under section 173 (3) BNS?
India at the Crossroads: The delimitation exercise and its implications for democracy