The Indian Express (Delhi Edition)
Can rejoin House: HC to 7 suspended BJP MLAS
THE DELHI High Court on Wednesday permitted seven BJP MLAS to “rejoin the House forthwith”, while observing that their suspension from the Delhi Legislative Assembly for an “indefinite period” for allegedly interrupting the address of Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena last month violated the prescribed procedure.
On February 16, a motion was proposed in the House to refer the matter to the privileges committee, and a decision was taken to suspend the petitioners from sitting in the House till the panel gives a finding.
This motion was put to vote and adopted by the House on the same day, via a voice vote, and subsequently on Speaker Ram Niwas Goel’s instructions the petitioner MLAS were escorted out of the House's legislative chamber by Marshalls.
Against this, the petitioners — Mohan Singh Bisht, Ajay Mahawar, O P Sharma, Abhay Verma, Anil Bajpai, Jitender Mahajan, and Vijender Gupta — had moved the High Court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad said: “In the absence of any application of mind by the Speaker in referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges and in view of the fact that the petitioners have not been heard while being given punishment of suspension till the Committee of Privileges decides the matter, and since the punishment under Rule 77 of Chapter XI can be prescribed only after a Member is heard, the direction for suspending the petitioners till the
Committee of Privileges takes a decision cannot be sustained.”
Justice Prasad, thereafter, said that the upshot is that the suspension was in “violation of the procedure prescribed” under Fifth Schedule titled ‘Code of Conduct’, and Chapter XI titled ‘questions involving breach of privilege and contempt’ under the ‘Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi’.
“Since the petitioners have already undergone the suspension of 14 sittings, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners should be permitted to rejoin the House forthwith,” said the High Court, while disposing of the pleas.
The High Court perused through the Fifth Schedule provisions titled ‘Code of Conduct’ and said that Clause 44(e) gives power to the Presiding Officer or the House to suspend a member “only for a definite period and not indefinitely”, adding that petitioners could have been given “only any one of the punishments”.
Observing that the petitioner MLAS were suspended without following the procedure established by law, the High Court further said that as per the Rules' provisions, only the Speaker, and not the House, can refer the matter to the privileges committee.
The court further perused through Rule 70, and observed that the provision casts an “obligation on the Speaker” to decide whether the matter should be referred to the privileges committee, and the Speaker has to inform the House accordingly.
“Rule 70 of Chapter XI has not been followed in this case. The Speaker, who is an impartial arbitrator and conducts the House, has not taken any decision independently, and has not held that the matter is one that requires to be referred to the Committee of Privileges,” observed Justice Prasad.