Power of the House to punish its Members for unethical conduct or contempts
- Part 4 -

O Joy Singh *

Shri Yeshwant Rao Meghawale and Shri Pandhari Rao Kridutta were expelled from the House by passing two resolutions by the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly on March 17, 1966 is one of the remarkable instances where elected Members of Legislative Assembly in India expelled from the House for their unethical conduct, wholly derogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standards expected of its members.

The circumstances of above mentioned in which the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed two resolutions on March 17, 1966 expelling Shri Yeshwant Rao Meghawale and Shri Pandhari Rao Kridutta from the House, was that on March 16, 1966 when a motion for suspending one Shri Ram Swaroop Khare, an MLA who was obstructing the business of the House and defying the Chair, from the service of the House for the rest of the day was moved, some Opposition members created a disorder and also obstructed the order of the business of the House, the Marshal and the security force from taking away from the House Shri Haribhau Joshi, an MLA of the House who had been asked by the Chair to leave the House and who had refused to do so.

During the course of this disturbance and confusion, Yeshwant Rao Meghawale, leaving his seat, ran up to dais and jumped on it and assaulted the Deputy Speaker who was presiding over the sitting of the House and who was at that moment on his feel adjourning the House for a while. The House reassembled after a few minutes and in the resumed sitting the motion suspending Shri Khare was carried on.

Some members of the opposition, including Shri Yeshwant Rao Meghawale and Shri Pandhari Rao Kridutta, still continued to offer obstruction to the deliberations and created confusion and disorder to such an extent that the Deputy Speaker was compelled to adjourn the sitting of the House to the next day.

On March 17, 1966, i.e. on the next day, the Deputy Speaker at the very commencement of the sitting named five members of the Assembly, including Shri Pandhari Rao Kridutta under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly for their conduct and behaviour during the previous day’s sitting. Pandhari Rao Kridutta, who was present in the House, did not attempt to explain his conduct or the allegations made against him.

After the motion was put to vote and carried, Shri Pandhari Rao Kridutta suddenly left his seat, came in front of his desk and standing there he abused the Chair and hurled a chappal (a footwear) at the Deputy Speaker. The chappal missed the Deputy Speaker. Thereupon, Shri Pandhari Rao threw another chappal at the Deputy Speaker which touching his hair fell on the floor.

Pandhari Rao then left the House. After this incident one Shri Rameshwar Agnibhoj, a member of the Assembly moved a motion for expulsion of Shri Yeshwant Rao Meghawale and Shri Umrao Singh, another member, moved a motion for expulsion of Shri Pandhari Rao, and after having deliberate consideration the two motions were unanimously passed and adopted by the House on March 17, 1966.

As such, the two members of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, namely - Shri Yeshwant Rao Meghawale and Shri Pandhari Rao were expelled from the House for their unethical conduct, wholly derogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standards expected of its members with effect from March 17, 1966.

The question arises as to what extent the expulsion of its members by Parliament or the State Legislatures is justifiable and the expelled members can seek relief from the Courts in India. It is settled law that the Courts have the power to interpret the existence and scope of a power, privilege or immunity of Parliament under Article 105 (3) of the Constitution of India or the State Legislatures under Article 194 (3) of the Constitution of India.

Rather, Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution of India state that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament and State Legislatures shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. In fact, the Court cannot interfere into the proceedings of the House under Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution of India, but unconstitutional.

The question whether the judiciary can interfere in matters of parliamentary privileges or not has been examined by the Indian Judiciary at different points of time in different situations. However, on each occasion, the judiciary has arrived at the conclusion that they cannot interfere in matters of privileges of Parliament and recognized that a House of Parliament or a State Legislature is the sole authority to judge as to whether or not there has been a breach of privilege in a particular case. It has also been held that the power of the House to commit for contempt is identical with that of the House of Commons.

The Supreme Court of India has, however, up till now not pronounced a judgement whether the privileges of Parliament or State Legislatures include the power to expel their Members albeit there have been conflicting judgements of the High Courts in different States over the issue.

However, regarding in a case for suspension of 12 (twelve) Members of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for a period of one year from their services of a Member resolving a resolution by adopting a Motion in 2021 by the House, the Supreme Court passed an Order that the impugned resolution passed on 05-07-2021 by the House of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly is declared to be ineffective in law as it is non est in the eyes of law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational; and the Motion passed on 05-07-2021 by the House is reproduced for general recall:

“On 5th July 2021 when the business of the House was being conducted, Hon’ble M.L.As Dr. Sanjay Kute, Dr. Sanjay Kute, Adv. Ashish Shelar, Sarvashree Abhimanyu Pawar, Girish Mahajan, Atul Bhatkhalkar, Adv. Parag Alabani, Sarvashree Harish Pimple, Ram Satpute, Jaikumar Rawal, Yogesh Sagar, Narayan Kuche, Kritikumar @ Bunty Bhangdiya misbehaved in the House, addressed the Chairman in the Speaker’s Chair unparliamentary language, tried to take the mike and Rajdand, despite repeated warnings, all these members misbehaved in the chamber of the Hon’ble Speaker even after the House was adjourned and abused and manhandled the Chairman in the Speaker’s Chair.

Due to the indisciplined and unbecoming behaviour resulting the maligning the dignity of the House, this House resolves to suspend the membership of the Sarvashree Dr. Sanjay Kute, Adv. Ashish Shelar, Sarvashree Abhimanyu Pawar, Girish Mahajan, Atul Bhatkhalkar, Adv. Parag Alabani, Sarvashree Harish Pimple, Ram Satpute, Jaikumar Rawal, Yogesh Sagar, Narayan Kuche, Kritikumar @ Bunty Bhangdiya for a period of one year. Similarly, during the period of suspension they may be restrained from entering into the premises of Vidhan Bhawan at Mumbai and Nagpur.”

Furthermore, actually it has to say that both Parliament and State Legislative Assembly in India have the powers to punish its members in the form of admonition, reprimand, withdrawal from the House, suspension from the service of the House, imprisonment and expulsion from the House for their misconduct or improper conduct or unethical conduct or disorderly conduct or unbecoming behaviour of members and contempts committed by the members within the House or beyond its walls, even though there is absent for any rules to deal with expulsion of members in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business framed under Article 118, for Parliament, and under Article 208, for State Legislative Assembly, of the Constitution of India or by any statutory laws of the Country, for the said unethical conduct or contempts committed by the members inside the House or outside of it, but unconstitutional.

In Conclusion, in the interest of general population, regarding the position of a responsible citizen of a Country which have parliamentary system of democracy in the World, I would like to recall here a quotation of Mr. Speaker FitzRoy, to the Select Committee on Procedure of House of Commons, United Kingdom, in 1931 so that to prove its vitality in the parliamentary system of democracy is - “The man in the Street, from all classes, is surprisingly ignorant of all parliamentary procedure, and has never given it any serious consideration at all.”

Concluded ....