The Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council reinforces judicial review as a safeguard against arbitrary legislative actions. It upholds the doctrine of proportionality and fair procedure while respecting legislative privileges. Moving forward, legislative bodies must ensure transparency and procedural fairness in disciplinary actions to avoid judicial intervention.

New Delhi (ABC Live): This report critically analyzes the Supreme Court of India's judgment in Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council, where the Court adjudicated on the legality and proportionality of Dr. Singh’s expulsion from the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC). The ruling, issued on February 25, 2025, examined key constitutional principles, including natural justice, legislative privilege, judicial review, and proportionality in legislative sanctions.

II. Case Background Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, a member of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), was expelled from the BLC following a recommendation by the Ethics Committee. The expulsion stemmed from allegations of unparliamentary conduct, including derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister and disruption of proceedings. Dr. Singh challenged the expulsion under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that it violated natural justice and was politically motivated.

III. Legal Issues Considered The Supreme Court examined the following legal questions:

1.     Maintainability of the Writ Petition – Whether the Court could review the legislative proceedings in light of Article 212(1) of the Constitution.

2.     Judicial Review of Legislative Decisions – Whether the Court could assess the proportionality of legislative sanctions.

3.     Application of Proportionality Doctrine – Whether Dr. Singh’s expulsion was excessive relative to the alleged misconduct.

4.     Judicial Power to Modify Legislative Sanctions – Whether the Court could substitute the punishment imposed.

IV. Key Findings of the Supreme Court

1.     Maintainability of the Petition:

o   The Court held that while Article 212(1) protects legislative proceedings from judicial scrutiny on procedural grounds, it does not bar judicial review of actions affecting fundamental rights.

o   The Ethics Committee’s recommendation and subsequent expulsion were classified as administrative actions rather than legislative decisions, making them subject to judicial scrutiny.

2.     Legislative Privilege vs. Judicial Review:

o   The Court reaffirmed that legislative privileges cannot override constitutional rights. It emphasized that while legislatures have disciplinary powers, these powers must be exercised within constitutional limits.

o   This principle was previously upheld in Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184, where the Court ruled that legislative privileges cannot infringe upon fundamental rights and are subject to judicial review.

3.     Doctrine of Proportionality:

o   The judgment analyzed proportionality through domestic and international jurisprudence, including German, EU, and U.S. legal principles.

o   The Court held that expulsion is an extreme measure that should be reserved for grave misconduct. Given that a similarly accused member, Md. Sohaib, received only a two-day suspension, Dr. Singh’s expulsion was deemed excessive.

o   In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611, the Supreme Court emphasized that punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct, reinforcing the importance of the proportionality doctrine in legislative and administrative actions.

4.     Judicial Substitution of Punishment:

o   Invoking Article 142, the Court ruled that the period Dr. Singh had already spent expelled (approximately seven months) should be deemed as a suspension instead of expulsion.

o   The Court ordered his reinstatement but denied remuneration for the period of disbandment.

V. Critical Analysis

1.     Judicial Overreach or Necessary Intervention?

o   The judgment balances legislative autonomy with constitutional safeguards. While some may argue that the Court overstepped by modifying legislative sanctions, the ruling aligns with past precedents (e.g., Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha) affirming judicial oversight of legislative disciplinary actions.

o   The invocation of Article 142 reflects judicial pragmatism, preventing prolonged injustice while maintaining legislative integrity.

2.     Fairness in Legislative Disciplinary Actions

o   The Ethics Committee’s decision lacked transparency, as Dr. Singh was not provided with essential evidence.

o   The selective and severe punishment suggests possible political bias, reinforcing the necessity of judicial oversight in legislative ethics enforcement.

3.     Implications for Legislative Discipline

o   The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining decorum while ensuring fairness in legislative disciplinary measures.

o   It sets a precedent requiring legislative bodies to ensure due process and proportionality in imposing sanctions.

VI. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council reinforces judicial review as a safeguard against arbitrary legislative actions. It upholds the doctrine of proportionality and fair procedure while respecting legislative privileges. Moving forward, legislative bodies must ensure transparency and procedural fairness in disciplinary actions to avoid judicial intervention.