Chadha was suspended from Rajya Sabha for allegedly not obtaining the consent of five MPs before including their name to a select committee. He is under suspension pending an enquiry by the privileges committee of the House.
—
ON Monday, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court sent a notice to the Rajya Sabha secretariat on a petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) member of Parliament (MP) Raghav Chadha challenging his suspension from Rajya Sabha.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra directed the matter to be listed on October 30.
Chadha was suspended from Rajya Sabha for allegedly not obtaining the consent of five MPs before including their name to a select committee. He is under suspension pending an enquiry by the privileges committee of the House.
One of the issues raised by Chadha is whether Rules 256 and 266 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) empower the chairperson of Rajya Sabha to pass an Order of suspension pending an enquiry.
Rule 256 (suspension of member) states:
(1) The Chairman may, if he deems it necessary, name a member who disregards the authority of the chair or abuses the rules of the council by persistently and willfully obstructing the business thereof.
(2) If a member is so named by the chairman he shall forthwith put the question on a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed, that the member (naming him) be suspended from the service of the council for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session:
Provided that the council may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
(3) A member suspended under this Rule shall forthwith quit the precincts of the council.
Rule 266 confers residuary powers upon the chairperson stating that all matters not specifically provided for in these Rules and all questions relating to the detailed working of these Rules shall be regulated in such manner as the chairman may from time to time direct.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Chadha, argued that Rule 256 would, at the most, allow the suspension of a member only till the end of a session and not beyond.
He further contended that Rule 256 is attracted only in respect of conduct amounting to disregarding the authority of the chair or abusing the Rules of the council by persistently and willfully obstructing business.
He further argued that Rule 266, which deals with the residuary powers of the chairperson, could not be availed of to suspend a member beyond the period prescribed in Rule 256; and that the tenure or period of suspension which is provided in Rule 256(2) could not be extended either under that provision or in exercise of the residuary powers.
The Bench noted the following questions for determination for which it has also sought the assistance of the Attorney General for India:
(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 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.
(vi) 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.
As per media reports, five Rajya Sabha MPs— S. Phangnon Konyak, Narhari Amin and Sudhanshu Trivedi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), M. Thambidurai of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and Sasmit Patra of Biju Janata Dal (BJD)— alleged their names were included by Chadha in a select committee to consider the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023 without their consent.
