Supreme Court Seeks Rajya Sabha Secretariat's Response In Raghav Chadha Suspension Row
Besides the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Chadha had made the chairperson of the House and the privileges committee the parties to his petition.
The Supreme Court Monday sought a response from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat on the petition filed by AAP leader and lawmaker Raghav Chadha challenging his indefinite suspension from the upper House, and sought the assistance of the attorney general in adjudicating the issue.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took note of the submissions of senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi and lawyer Shadan Farasat, representing Chadha, that the suspension cannot extend beyond the particular session during which the decision to suspend the member was made.
The top court issued the notice to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat only on the plea which will be heard on October 30, and asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist it in dealing with legal issues related to suspension of a lawmaker from the upper House.
Besides the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Chadha had made the chairperson of the House and the privileges committee the parties to his petition.
Dwivedi said he was not seeking any interim relief in the petition at the moment.
During the hearing, the bench took note of the submissions of senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Chadha, that the case raised an “important national issue” and framed as many as seven questions for adjudication.
“Whether there is any justification to suspend a Member of Parliament pending enquiry?” read one of the questions framed by the the bench. “Whether such an order could be passed after the matter is referred to the privilege committee based on the same grounds for the purpose of examination, investigation and report,” read another question.
Framing the third question, it said, whether, assuming that Rule 72 has been breached by the petitioner (Chadha) by the fact that he did not ascertain the willingness of the MPs who were proposed to be nominated to the select committee, would it in any case amount to a breach of privilege of the House.
Another question the bench framed was whether Rule 256 and Rule 266 (discretionary powers of RS chairperson) empower the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to pass an order of suspension pending inquiry. In any case, for such a breach whether the rule of proportionality would apply, it said in another question.
“Whether a Member of Parliament can be suspended in any event for such a breach; whether the suspension is disproportionate and arbitrary violating Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution,” the bench said. Whether the freedom of speech within Parliament protected by Article 105 (freedom of speech inside the House) and the freedom of speech outside Parliament protected by Article 19(1)(a) encompass the presentation of views within Parliament, the seventh question reads.
It was alleged that the Rajya Sabha MP from Punjab had moved a motion to refer the Delhi Services Bill to the select committee.
He had allegedly named some lawmakers as members of the proposed committee and it was claimed that some of the MPs had not given their consent for it.
Taking note of the complaint, the chairman suspended Chadha, pending inquiry by the Committee of Privileges.
Dwivedi opposed the suspension and said Rule 266 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States only empowered the chairman to issue general directions and he cannot suspend a member. Moreover, the suspension cannot be beyond the term of that particular session.
In his plea filed through advocate Shadan Farasat, the AAP leader has said the power to suspend indefinitely is dangerously open to excesses and abuse.
"The power to suspend is meant only to be used as a shield and not as a sword, that is, it cannot be penal," the plea has said, adding "the suspension is in clear breach of Rule 256 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States, which incorporates a categorical prohibition against the suspension of any member for a period exceeding the remainder of the session." It has noted that suspension beyond the remaining period of an ongoing session would not only be a grossly irrational measure, but also be violative of basic democratic values owing to the unessential deprivation of the member concerned and more importantly, the constituency remaining unrepresented in the House.
The plea has said suspension cannot have the effect of dismissal as, in terms of Article 101(4) of the Constitution, the effect of an indefinite suspension, particularly outside the period of a session is to de-facto create a vacancy after a period of 60 days.
The Rajya Sabha had passed a motion moved by the Leader of the House Piyush Goyal on August 11 seeking action against the AAP leader for including the names of some members of the Upper House without their consent in a proposed select committee for considering the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023.
Chadha was suspended on the last day of the Monsoon session for "gross violation of rules, misconduct, defiant attitude and contemptuous conduct", pending a report by the privileges committee.
(This story is published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)
Trending News
Top Headlines
