Thursday, December 26, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Raghav Chadha suspension: Supreme Court expresses concern over indefinite suspension of a Member of Parliament, its impact on the right of people to be represented

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed grave concern over the indefinite suspension of a Member of Parliament and its impact on the right of people to be represented.

Hearing the writ petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Raghav Chadha against his suspension from the Rajya Sabha on August 11 during the Monsoon Session, the Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. 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. 

During the course of hearing, the Apex Court asked whether the action of Chadha would amount to a breach of Parliamentary privilege. 

It noted that as per the rules of the House, the consent of members was necessary at the stage of appointing them as members of a select committee. The Bench said it was important to be ‘very careful’ about not excluding those voices from the Parliament.

The AAP leader was suspended over the allegation that he did not ascertain the willingness of certain members whose names were proposed by him as members of the select committee for the GNCTD (Amendment) Bill 2023. 

The Apex Court further sought to know whether it could be an infraction warranting indefinite suspension. 

It asked whether this was worse than the disruption of proceedings? Was this really on a higher level, the Bench asked further. 

The CJI pointed out that a member who disrupted the House was only suspended for the remainder of the session. In this case, the alleged infraction was that he (Chadha) did not verify. Some proportionality was now an invented part of the jurisprudence, the CJI told Attorney General R Venkataramani.

The Rajya Sabha Chairperson suspended Chadha pending an inquiry by the Privileges Committee following a resolution passed by the House. 

As per the Apex Court, Rules 256 and 266 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States did not apply in the present case. It asked whether the inherent powers could be invoked to suspend a member indefinitely.

spot_img

News Update