Ashish Shelar And Others Petitioner(s) v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly And Another (s).

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitions challenge a resolution of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly dated 05.07.2021. The petitioners contend that the resolution resulted in a one-year suspension affecting twelve members, abridging their rights under Article 194 of the Constitution of India and, by extension, the representation of their constituencies. The Court heard counsel for the petitioners and for the State of Maharashtra.

The petitioners argue that the resolution was adopted without affording them an opportunity of being heard and in derogation of the rules of natural justice. They also assert non-compliance with the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, specifically Rule 53 (procedure for suspension by the Speaker) and Part XVIII including Rule 273 (actions for breach of privilege).

The State responds that Article 212(1) of the Constitution bars judicial scrutiny of procedural irregularities within the House and that the Court cannot review the House’s final decision on the basis of abstract grounds, emphasizing the House’s prerogative to regulate its own procedure, even through a sui generis process.

Observing that the matters raise issues of importance to a Westminster form of democracy and require deeper consideration, the Court issued formal notice to the respondents, returnable on 11.01.2022. Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, waived notice for respondent No. 2 (the State). The petitioner was permitted to serve dasti notice on respondent No. 1. The Court noted that the pendency of the petitions does not preclude the petitioners from requesting the House to reconsider or show leniency, including by reducing the term specified in the impugned resolution.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the impugned resolution of 05.07.2021 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, including denial of an opportunity of being heard to the affected members.
2. Whether the resolution complied with the prescribed procedures under the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, including Rule 53 and Part XVIII (including Rule 273) relating to suspension and breach of privilege.
3. What is the scope of judicial review over internal proceedings and decisions of a Legislative Assembly in light of Article 212(1) of the Constitution, and the principles recognized in judicial decisions such as Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha and Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. T.N. Legislative Assembly.
4. Whether the one-year period of suspension is manifestly arbitrary, irrational, or otherwise unconstitutional, including on the ground that it abridges rights under Article 194.
5. Whether adoption of a sui generis procedure by the House to regulate its business insulates the resolution from judicial scrutiny.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

• The resolution was passed without providing the petitioners an opportunity of being heard, violating the rules of natural justice.
• The procedure prescribed under Rule 53 (suspension by the Speaker) was not followed, nor were the provisions in Part XVIII, including Rule 273 (breach of privilege), invoked or adhered to.
• While the Legislative Assembly’s powers are broad, its decisions remain subject to judicial review on settled grounds such as manifest arbitrariness, irrationality, and violation of fundamental rights, as delineated in Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha (2007) 3 SCC 184 and Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. T.N. Legislative Assembly (2016) 6 SCC 82.
• The impugned action abridges the rights of twelve members under Article 194 and adversely affects their constituencies; reliance solely on a majority vote for such an outcome is unprecedented and lacks support in precedent.
• The one-year suspension period is unconscionable, manifestly arbitrary, and irrational.

State's Arguments

• Article 212(1) precludes courts from inquiring into alleged procedural irregularities within the House; hence, arguments about non-compliance with internal rules are non-justiciable.
• The Court should not conduct judicial review of the House’s final decision based on abstract grounds; the House retains absolute prerogative to regulate its business, including by adopting a sui generis procedure.
• The petitioners have not refuted allegations of misbehaviour in and outside the House; this assertion was countered by the petitioners’ counsel.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the matters raise issues “of moment for a Westminster form of Democracy.” After hearing counsel for both sides, it observed that the questions presented are debatable and require deeper consideration. In light of this, the Court determined that the appropriate course was to initiate further proceedings by issuing a formal notice to the respondents, rather than deciding any questions on the merits at this stage.

The Court also recorded that counsel for respondent No. 2 (the State) waived notice and permitted the petitioners to serve dasti notice on respondent No. 1. Additionally, the Court clarified that the pendency of the petitions would not prevent the petitioners from requesting the House to show leniency or to reconsider the impugned decision, including by reducing the term of the suspension.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: Formal notice was issued to the respondents, returnable on 11.01.2022. Notice was waived for respondent No. 2 (the State). The petitioner was permitted to serve dasti notice on respondent No. 1. The Court observed that the petitioners may, during pendency, approach the House to seek leniency or reconsideration, including reduction of the suspension term.

IMPLICATIONS: The matter proceeds to the next stage for fuller consideration; no determination on the merits has been made and no interim relief is recorded. The immediate effect is procedural: parties will respond to the notice, and the House may independently consider any request for leniency or reconsideration. No new precedent is set by this order.