Supreme Court issues notice to Rajya Sabha secretariat on AAP MP Raghav Chadha’s petition against suspension
Satya Prakash
New Delhi, October 16
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat on AAP Rajya Sabha MP from Punjab Raghav Chadha’s petition challenging his indefinite suspension from the Upper House.
Requesting Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist it in the matter, a Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud posted Chadha’s petition for further hearing on October 30.
The order came after senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Chadha, questioned the legality of his indefinite suspension from the Upper House pending an inquiry.
Chadha was suspended from the Rajya Sabha on August 11 during the Monsoon Session over a breach of privileges complaint after the House passed a motion moved by Leader of the House Piyush Goyal seeking action against him for including the names of some members of the Upper House without their consent in a proposed select committee for the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023.
His suspension from the Rajya Sabha is to remain in force until the committee of privileges probing the case against him submits its report.
Dwivedi argued that Rule 256 would allow suspension till the end of the session in respect of the conduct amounting to disregarding the authority of the Chair or disrupting the proceedings of the house and Rule 266 — which deals with residuary powers of the Rajya Sabha Chairperson — cannot be used to suspend a member and the tenure of suspension provided for in Rule 256(2) cannot be extended.
Dwivedi referred to the Supreme Court’s verdict in Ashish Shelar versus State of Maharashtra (2022) in which it was held that suspension of members beyond one session was arbitrary and illegal. He, however, said he was not keen on any interim relief for the AAP MP at the moment.
Chadha has contended that the power to suspend indefinitely is dangerously open to excess and abuse.
“The power to suspend is meant only to be used as a shield and not as a sword, that is, it cannot be penal,” Chadha said in his petition, adding that “the suspension is in clear breach of Rule 256 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States, which incorporates a categorical prohibition against the suspension of any member for a period exceeding the remainder of the session”.
Chadha contended that suspension beyond the remaining period of an ongoing session would not only be a grossly irrational measure, but would also be violative of basic democratic values owing to the unessential deprivation of the member concerned and more importantly, the constituency remaining unrepresented in the House.
Suspension from the House cannot have the effect of dismissal as, in terms of Article 101(4) of the Constitution, the effect of an indefinite suspension, particularly outside the period of a session is to de-facto create a vacancy after a period of 60 days, he submitted.
