Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council & Ors. (2025)

Introduction 

This landmark Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, quashed the respondent Legislative Council's decision to permanently expel the petitioner for defamatory comments against the Chief Minister. While condemning the petitioner's "abhorrent" conduct, the Court held the expulsion "highly excessive" and established key precedents on judicial review of legislative decisions and proportionality in legislative punishments. 

Facts 

• During the budget session in February 2024, the petitioner, serving as Chief Whip of the Opposition, allegedly used defamatory words against the Chief Minister and imitated him in the Legislative Council. 
• The Ethics Committee was constituted to investigate the petitioner's conduct. On 12th June 2024, the Committee Chairman informed the petitioner that proceedings were at a preliminary stage. 
• Within two days, on 14th June 2024, the Committee submitted its report recommending permanent expulsion, signed by only 4 out of 7 members. 
• The petitioner alleged violation of natural justice principles, claiming he was not provided with relevant video recordings and was denied opportunity to speak during his expulsion. 
• The petitioner contended discriminatory treatment, as his colleague-MLC received only 2-day suspension for similar language while he faced permanent expulsion. 
• The respondent Council acted on the Committee's recommendation and permanently expelled the petitioner under clause 10(d) of Rule 290 of the Bihar Legislative Council's Procedure and Conduct of Business Rules. 
• The Election Commission issued notification for bye-elections to fill the vacancy. The petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No. 530/2024 challenging his expulsion as illegal and unconstitutional. 
• The Supreme Court issued notice in August 2024, directed withholding of bye-election results in January 2025, and decided the matter on 25th February 2025. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether legislative decisions are amenable to judicial review under Article 212 of the Constitution. 
• Whether Ethics Committee decisions fall within legislative functions immune from judicial review. 
• Whether permanent expulsion was proportionate and whether courts can review such proportionality. 
• Whether the petitioner was denied fair hearing and due process in Committee proceedings. 
• Whether disproportionate punishment violates democratic rights of the electorate. 
• Whether the Supreme Court could invoke Article 142 powers to substitute punishment. 

Court's Observations 

Justice Surya Kant's Key Holdings: 

• Established no absolute bar on judicial review of legislative decisions, distinguishing them from legislative proceedings. Article 212 bar may not apply to legislative decisions, establishing Court's jurisdiction without encroaching upon legislative domain. 
• Held that Ethics Committee decisions are not part of core legislative functions and hence not immune from judicial review, expanding scope of constitutional oversight. 
• Established that courts can review proportionality of Legislative Council punishments, as disproportionate punishment undermines democratic values and affects electorate's rights. 
• While condemning the petitioner's behavior as "abhorrent" and "unbecoming," emphasized that the Legislative Council should have exercised magnanimity in determining punishment and adopted more balanced measures. 
• Ruled permanent expulsion was excessive and disproportionate, violating both the petitioner's fundamental rights and the rights of the electorate he represented. 

Justice N. Kotiswar Singh's Observations: 

• Fully concurred with Justice Surya Kant's analysis regarding disproportionate punishment. 
• Emphasized protecting democratic values while maintaining legislative discipline. 
• Reinforced that disproportionate punishment impacts democratic rights of voters. 

Court's Directions: 

• Set aside the respondent Legislative Council's permanent expulsion decision. 
• Held seven months of expulsion already undergone by the petitioner as deemed suspension and appropriate punishment. 
• Quashed Election Commission's bye-election notification. 
• Cautioned the petitioner against future defamatory comments. 
• Exercised Article 142 powers to substitute punishment rather than remitting matter back. 
• Clarified judgment does not condone the petitioner's condemnable conduct. 

Principles Established: 

• Legislative decisions, unlike proceedings, are subject to judicial review and not absolutely protected under Article 212. 
• Courts can review proportionality of legislative punishments to ensure alignment with democratic principles. 
• Legislative committees must adhere to natural justice principles when proceeding against members. 
• Disproportionate punishment of elected representatives violates electorate's democratic rights. 
• Legislative bodies should adopt measured, proportionate responses to member misconduct. 

Conclusion 

This landmark judgment establishes that legislative decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 212, distinguishing them from legislative proceedings. The Court ruled that proportionality review of legislative punishments is within judicial purview while balancing legislative autonomy with constitutional oversight. The decision reinforces that legislative bodies must exercise powers proportionately in accordance with constitutional values, ensuring parliamentary self-regulation operates within constitutional bounds while protecting both individual and democratic rights.