The Supreme Court, on Monday, voiced significant concerns regarding the ongoing suspension of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Member of Parliament, Raghav Chadha, from the Rajya Sabha. The apex court termed the exclusion of a member of the political opposition from the house as a “serious matter.”
Also read- Supreme Court Clears Path For Delhi HC To Review AAP Consultants’ Termination (lawchakra.in)
While hearing Chadha’s writ petition, which challenges his suspension from the Rajya Sabha during the monsoon session on August 11, the bench, comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, highlighted the potential ramifications of such an indefinite suspension. The CJI remarked,
“Such kind of indefinite suspension will have ramifications on the people whose constituency is going unrepresented? Where is the power of the privilege committee to indefinitely suspend the member?”
He further added,
“We must be very careful about not excluding those voices from the Parliament.”
Chadha’s suspension was rooted in allegations that he did not verify the willingness of certain members whose names he proposed for the select committee for the GNCTD (Amendment) Bill 2023. Following a resolution passed by the house, the Rajya Sabha Chairperson suspended Chadha, pending an inquiry by the Privileges Committee.
During the hearing, the bench questioned whether Chadha’s actions could be considered a breach of Parliamentary privilege. CJI Chandrachud pointed out that according to the house rules, the consent of members is essential when appointing them to a select committee. He further questioned the proportionality of the suspension, stating, “Is this worse than the disruption of proceedings? Is this really on a higher level? A person who disrupts the house is excluded for the rest of the session. In this case alleged infraction is that he didn’t verify. Some proportionality is now an invented part of our jurisprudence.”
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Chadha, emphasized that the AAP legislator had already apologized for his actions and was willing to provide a written apology to the Chairperson. He also highlighted the need to define the powers of parliamentary privileges to prevent potential misuse. Dwivedi argued,
“I am making a statement that I respect Rajya Sabha… I have apologised earlier and I’m willing to give a written apology to the Chairperson. But the process being followed is patently illegal and violative of the law and constitution. This is patently violative of fundamental rights and conventions of the past and has dangerous consequences.”
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, however, questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to intervene in the exercise of privileges by the House. He argued,
“The sole question is whether this court can enter this matter? No. Even with a dispassionate understanding of the case- I’ve never seen any court to even come close to look into these matters.”
The hearing was adjourned until Friday, November 3, with both parties instructed to compile their submissions by Thursday.
