Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Raghav Chadha vs Rajya Sabha Secretariat on 16 October, 2023

                                                                                             WPC 1155/2023


     ITEM NO.23                                  COURT NO.1                       SECTION X

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F               I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                                     Writ Petition (Civil) No.1155/2023


     RAGHAV CHADHA                                                                 Petitioner(s)

                                                          VERSUS

     RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT & ORS.                                                Respondent(s)

     (With IA No.212916/2023-STAY APPLICATION)


     Date : 16-10-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.


     CORAM :
                                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA


     For Petitioner(s)                   Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.
                                         Mr. Eklavya Diwedi, Adv.
                                         Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR
                                         Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv.
                                         Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Adv.
                                         Ms. Neha Sonawane, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)


                           UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                               O R D E R

1 The petitioner, who is a Member of the Rajya Sabha has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge his suspension pending an enquiry by the Privileges Committee of the House.

The provisions of Rules 256 and 266 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) have been invoked to suspend the petitioner.

2 Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with Mr Shadan Farasat, counsel has formulated the following issues which, in his submission, would require determination by this Court:

(i) Whether by an admixture of a resolution of the House and an order of the Chairperson under Rules 256 and 266, there is any jurisdiction to suspend a Member of Parliament pending an enquiry;

(ii) Whether such an order could be passed after the matter was referred to the Committee on Privileges based on the same grounds for examination, investigation and report;

(iii) Whether Rules 256 and 266 empower the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha to pass an order of suspension pending an enquiry;

(iv) Assuming that Rule 72 was breached by the petitioner by not ascertaining the consent of the Members of the House who were proposed to be nominated to the Select Committee, whether this would amount to a breach of privilege of the House or of the Members of Parliament since the Members had indicated their unwillingness before the motion was taken up following which the Bill was passed and the motion was defeated;

(v) Whether a Member of Parliament can be suspended pending enquiry for such a breach and whether the suspension would pass the test of proportionality in relation to Article 14 of the Constitution;

(vi) Whether in view of Rule 297, such an order, if passed, would be in breach of the Rules; and Page 2 of 4  WPC 1155/2023

(vii) Whether the freedom of speech within Parliament which is protected by Article 105(1) and freedom of speech outside the Parliament which is protected by Article 19(1)(a) encompasses the presentation of the views of a Member of Parliament within and outside the precincts of the House.

3 Buttressing the above submissions, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that:

(i) Rule 256 at the highest, would empower the suspension of a Member only until the end of the session (and not beyond);

(ii) Rule 256 is attracted in respect of conduct amounting to disregarding the authority of the Chair or abusing the rules of the Council by persistently and willfully obstructing the business;

(iii) Rule 266 which deals with the residuary powers of the Chairperson cannot be availed of to suspend a Member beyond the period prescribed in Rule 256; and

(iv) The tenure or period of suspension which is provided in Rule 256(2) cannot be extended either under that provision or in exercise of the residuary powers.

4 In this context, reliance has been placed on the judgment of a three-Judge Bench in Ashish Shelar and Others vs. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and Another1 which interprets similar provisions and in Amarinder Singh vs Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha and Others2.

1 (2022) 12 SCC 273 2 (2010) 6 SCC 113 Page 3 of 4  WPC 1155/2023 5 Notice shall issue to the first respondent, returnable on 30 October 2023.

6 We request the learned Attorney General for India to assist the Court.

      (CHETAN KUMAR)                               (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
       A.R.-cum-P.S.                               Assistant Registrar




                                                                          Page 4 of 4