Today, On 30th August, RJD leader Sunil Kumar Singh filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging his expulsion from the Bihar Legislative Council. In response, the court has issued a notice to the Office of the Chairman of the Legislative Council. Singh’s challenge could have significant implications for the council’s decision-making process.
New Delhi: RJD leader Sunil Kumar Singh filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging his expulsion from the Bihar Legislative Council. In response, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Chairman and Secretary of the Bihar Legislative Council, as well as the Election Commission.
This expulsion stems from an unparliamentary remark made by Singh about Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.
Read Also: Patna HC Imposes Fine on Lower Court Judges for Wrongful Conviction
Last month, during the Monsoon Session, Singh’s membership revoked following a recommendation from the Code of Conduct Committee. After this, Singh approached the Supreme Court on Friday, August 30. The RJD accused the Nitish government of breaching parliamentary conventions in this matter.
In his effort to persuade the Court, Singhvi argued,
“The larger implication is that this could undermine democracy… Now, I may refrain from speaking in this manner, and so might others, but ‘Palturam’ is a term that has been widely published in newspapers. I am not suggesting that it is justified. However, he uses this term in the house, which offers greater protection!”
The alleged incident occurred during the budget session this past February, and the expulsion was based on a recommendation.
The Supreme Court’s notice to the Legislative Council office issued after Singh’s petition. The controversy began when Singh imitated Chief Minister Nitish Kumar during a budget session, an act that led to his expulsion. During discussions, this behaviour tied to alleged misconduct involving Nitish Kumar.
The RJD contended that the appropriate response to this mimicry should have been a reprimand from the presiding officer and a subsequent discussion, rather than such severe punishment. Furthermore, Singh was not given the opportunity to present his defence. He requested a written explanation from the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Committee regarding his specific fault and the grounds for his punishment, but no evidence or justification provided.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Advocate Yash Johri, and Advocate-on-record Priyansha Sharma appeared for the petitioner.