The Supreme Court of India has set aside the Bihar Legislative Council’s decision to expel RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh for making alleged defamatory remarks against Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. While the Court condemned Singh’s behavior as "abhorrent" and "unbecoming," it found the punishment of expulsion to be "highly excessive" and "disproportionate."
The Supreme Court ruled that Singh’s expulsion not only violated his individual rights but also infringed upon the rights of the electorate he represents.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh delivered the verdict, emphasizing that the punishment should be deemed as suspension instead of expulsion. Singh had already undergone a seven-month period of expulsion, which the Court deemed sufficient punishment for his misconduct.
“The Court has intervened only to modify the nature of punishment, and this judgment should not be construed as condoning the petitioner’s conduct.”
Additionally, the Supreme Court quashed the Election Commission of India's notification to conduct a bye-election for Singh’s seat, thereby reinstating his position.
Read Also:- Can a Special NIA Court Designated as an MP/MLA Court Hear Cases Against Other Accused?
Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Ruling
Legislative Decisions Are Not Above Judicial Review: While legislative proceedings enjoy protection, decisions taken by legislative bodies are subject to judicial review under Article 212 of the Constitution.
Ethics Committee’s Decisions Are Not Immune: The Court clarified that the Ethics Committee’s recommendations do not constitute legislative functions and can be reviewed by the judiciary.
Punishment Must Be Proportionate: The expulsion was deemed excessive and inconsistent with democratic values. The Court stressed the importance of ensuring fairness in disciplinary actions against elected representatives.
Conduct Was Unbecoming, But Expulsion Was Harsh: The Court acknowledged that Singh’s conduct was "abhorrent and unbecoming of a member of the council," but it urged the Legislative Council to act with greater "magnanimity."
Special Powers Under Article 142 Invoked: Rather than remitting the case back to the House, the Court exercised its special powers to revise the punishment, ensuring justice and efficiency.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy stemmed from Singh’s use of the word "Palturam" to describe Nitish Kumar. Singh argued that another MLC had also used the term but was only suspended for two days, whereas he was permanently expelled. He contended that his punishment was disproportionate and that he was denied principles of natural justice, as he was not shown relevant video recordings or given an opportunity to defend himself in the House.
Read Also:- TN Govt Moves SC Against Governor Over Pending Bills
During the proceedings, Singh relied on legal precedents, including Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007), to assert that legislative actions are subject to judicial scrutiny. He also pointed out procedural lapses in the Ethics Committee’s findings, highlighting that the committee’s report was signed by only four out of seven members.
The Bihar Legislative Council defended its actions, stating that Singh had previously been suspended for misconduct. The Council argued that Singh failed to attend meetings where evidence could have been presented to him. Additionally, it cited Raja Ram Pal to support its claim that the Supreme Court should not intervene in the proportionality of legislative punishments.
During hearings, Justice Kant noted in a lighter vein, "This is how humor works in politics." However, he also cautioned that even in dissent, a certain level of decorum must be maintained.
Singh’s counsel argued that several newspapers had used the term "Palturam" to describe Nitish Kumar, but the Court responded that as an elected representative, Singh was expected to uphold higher standards of conduct than the media.
The Ethics Committee’s recommendation stated:
"As the Chief Whip of the Opposition, his responsibility should be towards policies, rules, and constitutional authority of the House. However, his disruptive behavior, defiance of the Chair’s directions, and defamatory remarks against the Leader of the House have undermined the dignity of the Upper House."
"Under Clause 10(d) of Rule 290 of the Bihar Legislative Council’s Procedure and Conduct of Business Rules, the Committee recommends that Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh be relieved from his membership."
Singh challenged the expulsion before the Supreme Court, arguing that it was unconstitutional and sought to prevent the Election Commission from declaring his seat vacant. The Supreme Court, while refusing an interim stay in August 2024, later issued directions in January 2025 to withhold the bye-election results.
Case Details: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH v. BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 530/2024
