The Proportionality Principle as a Check on Legislative Expulsion: A New Judicial Standard

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s Judgment in Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council (2025 INSC 264) addresses major questions about the balance between legislative privilege, parliamentary discipline, and individual fundamental rights. In this case, Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh (the Petitioner) challenged the recommendation made by the Ethics Committee of the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) to expel him from his seat in the Legislative Council. The crux of the Petitioner’s argument was that this legislative action was not only flawed in procedure but disproportionately harsh, violating his fundamental rights.

The Respondents included the Bihar Legislative Council, through its Secretary, various officials involved in the proceedings, and the Election Commission of India. Notably, the Petitioner’s challenge raised multifaceted concerns about legislative powers, punishment for misconduct within the House, and the degree to which courts can review the decisions of legislative bodies.

The Supreme Court, in allowing the Petitioner’s writ under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, set out a critical precedent: that legislative punishments, though part of the House’s prerogative, cannot administer unduly harsh measures that infringe constitutionally guaranteed rights. The decision clarifies that while the legislative body has the power to discipline its members, this power is not beyond the scope of judicial review—particularly when it comes to ensuring the proportionality of the chosen penalty.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court found that, although the Petitioner’s conduct in the Legislative Council was indeed disrespectful and inappropriate, the Ethics Committee’s recommendation of expulsion was too extreme a measure. Key conclusions of the Court include:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The Court held that Article 212(1) of the Constitution bars judicial scrutiny of mere procedural irregularities in legislative proceedings, but does not insulate legislative decisions—particularly administrative or disciplinary decisions—from examination on grounds of constitutionality or illegality.
2. Legislative Decisions vs. Proceedings: The Court distinguished “proceedings of the House,” which enjoy a certain procedural immunity, from the “decision” of the House, which if found to violate constitutional rights, can indeed be reviewed.
3. Application of the Doctrine of Proportionality: The Court reiterated that punishments imposed by legislative bodies must pass the test of proportionality. In other words, penalties must not greatly exceed in severity the seriousness of the underlying misconduct.
4. Disproportionate Punishment: The Court concluded that expelling the Petitioner from membership was excessive when viewed against the instance of misconduct, which—though serious—could have been met with a less restrictive punishment.
5. Relief Granted: The Court invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to reduce the Petitioner’s punishment from “expulsion” to “suspension.” As a result, he was directed to be reinstated in the Legislative Council. The period spent out of the House was deemed a sufficient period of suspension.

Analysis

a) Precedents Cited

In resolving the dispute, the Supreme Court referenced pivotal precedents that clarify legislative privileges, fairness in disciplinary proceedings, and the scope of judicial review. Notably:

• Ashish Shelar and Ors. v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (2022): The Court cited this ruling for the principle that disciplinary measures by the House may be subjected to judicial review if they rise to the level of illegality or unconstitutionality.
• Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon’ble Speaker of Lok Sabha (2007): This landmark case established the concept that while the Legislature can expel members for misconduct, this power must be used sparingly and remain open to review if grossly unjust.
• Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (2003): Though primarily a service law case, it underlines the importance of proportionality in assessing punishments. The Court adapted this principle to the legislative context.
• Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India (1987): A frequently cited precedent on the proportionality principle, highlighting that too severe a punishment, compared to the gravity of misconduct, is liable to be struck down.

These judicial authorities helped the Court form the view that legislative bodies do not enjoy absolute immunity from scrutiny when imposing severe disciplinary measures. Courts are duty-bound to intervene if such measures are arbitrary, violate fundamental rights, or fail the proportionality test.

b) Legal Reasoning

The Court’s core legal reasoning hinged on four key determinations:

1. Article 212(1) and Its Limits: The Judgment clarifies that the constitutional bar under Article 212(1) only applies to procedural irregularities in the House and cannot be expanded to shield substantive administrative decisions violating fundamental rights.
2. Proportionality and Fundamental Rights: The actions of the Ethics Committee were administrative rather than legislative acts. Hence, the Constitution empowers courts to review whether the action (i.e., the punishment) had exceeded permissible boundaries. The Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine of proportionality, ensuring that the severity of a sanction is in harmony with the gravity of the misconduct.
3. Our Representative Democracy: The Court reasoned that expelling a member not only punishes the individual but also deprives an entire constituency of its chosen representative. Recognizing this, a less restrictive measure—such as suspension—often suffices to uphold House discipline without silencing an electorate’s voice.
4. Exceptional Power to Modify Punishments: Invoking Article 142, the Court declined to “remit” the matter back to the Ethics Committee, citing concerns about delays and the prolonged deprivation of the Petitioner’s rights. Instead, the Court fashioned direct equitable relief by reducing the punishment to suspension.

c) Impact

The ripple effects of this decision will be felt both within and beyond the State Legislature of Bihar:

• Heightened Judicial Oversight: This Judgment confirms that courts retain the scope to review disciplinary measures of legislative bodies, particularly where there is a manifest disregard of constitutional rights.
• Guidance on Punishments: Legislatures are reminded to adopt a graded approach when disciplining members—reserving expulsion for the most severe infractions and considering whether a censure or suspension would be adequate.
• Voters’ Interests: The ruling highlights the importance of the electorate’s representation. Legislatures must weigh the potential harm done by the member’s misbehavior against the cost to voters who may lose their voice in the House.
• Administrative vs. Legislative Functions: The decision draws critical boundaries between the House’s purely legislative functions and its administrative/disciplinary roles. Administrative decisions, such as member expulsions, do not enjoy the same heightened immunities as legislative enactments.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Article 212(1) Protection: This constitutional provision gives legislative proceedings a shelter from being questioned solely on procedural irregularities. However, it does not stop courts from inquiring into the substantive legality or proportionality of the legislature’s final decisions (especially when fundamental rights are at stake).

2. Doctrine of Proportionality: Courts use this principle to ask: Does the punishment correspond to the severity of the offense? If a member breaks house decorum, a short-term suspension may fully achieve the housekeeping goal, while an outright expulsion could be disproportionate.

3. Legislative vs. Administrative Actions: When a legislature enacts a law, that is legislative action. When it disciplines its members or issues notices—these are administrative actions. Administrative actions are more susceptible to judicial scrutiny, because they deal with individuals’ rights rather than making laws for the public.

4. Article 142 of the Constitution: This provision empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders to ensure “complete justice.” It allows modification or even substitution of punishment, rather than sending the matter back for lengthy reconsideration.

Conclusion

This Judgment by the Supreme Court strikes a careful balance by reiterating two fundamental messages: legislatures do have vast discretion to maintain discipline, and members cannot act with impunity. However, the Court reinforces that no branch of government is immune from accountability when fundamental rights are jeopardized.

The ruling also underscores that punishment must be measured and fair. The Court’s willingness to wade into the question of “proportionality” demonstrates the importance of ensuring that parliamentary discipline does not come at the cost of ignoring electoral representation or infringing constitutional guarantees. By requiring stricter justification for the harshest possible sanction—expulsion—the Court safeguards both individual rights and democratic processes.

In essence, the decision creates a noteworthy precedent reminding legislative bodies nationwide that while preserving decorum within the House is crucial, maintaining fairness and adhering to constitutional principles is even more imperative.