SUNIL KUMAR SINGH V. BIHAR  LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (THROUGH SECRETARY) AND  ORS. (2025) INSC 264

Kirti Soni, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh … Petitioner Versus

Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors. …Respondent

Judgement delivered by: Division Bench consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.  Kotiswar Singh

Judgement delivered on: 25 February, 2025

ABSTRACT

This judgment is a landmark ruling affirming that judicial review extends to legislative  disciplinary decisions like expulsion despite procedural immunity under Article 212(1) of the  Constitution¹. The Court emphasized that such disciplinary actions must be rational, fair, and  proportionate, safeguarding both the member’s fundamental rights and the electorate’s  representation. While the petitioner’s conduct was inappropriate, expulsion was held  disproportionate, leading the Court to convert the punishment to suspension and order  reinstatement without back pay.² The ruling balances legislative discipline with constitutional  guarantees and democratic principles, underscoring fairness and protection of voters’ rights.

FACTS

The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Singh, a member of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), was elected to  the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) on 29.06.2020 for a period of six years. During the 206th  session of the BLC, the petitioner approached the well of the House and hurled indecent slogans  against the Chief Minister. He mocked him as “Paltu Ram,” imitated his body language and  sarcastically remarked that “the man who has not contested a single Mukhiya election till date is  the Chief Minister of Bihar.” The petitioner also alluded to the Chief Minister as an ‘expert in  manipulations’ and insinuated that he was “just like a snake sheds its skin every year.” This  indecorous fracas led to an undeniable obstruction of the proceedings of the House.

Following this, on 19.02.2024, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner and Md. Sohaib  before the Chairman of the BLC by a fellow Member of the Legislative Council belonging to the  ruling party, Janata Dal (United) (JDU). The complaint was forwarded to the Ethics Committee  for enquiry. The petitioner failed to appear before the Ethics Committee on the date initially  fixed and sought exemption, citing engagements and scheduling conflicts arising from the Lok  Sabha elections. He eventually appeared before the Ethics Committee for the first time on  12.06.2024, when a copy of the charges framed against him was provided.

The Ethics Committee thereafter submitted the impugned report recommending the expulsion of  the petitioner from the membership of the BLC. After due deliberations, the majority of the  House accepted the Committee’s recommendations and consequently the petitioner was expelled  forthwith.

A writ petition has now been filed in the Supreme Court of India by the petitioner which  challenges this expulsion based on the Ethics Committee report.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the instant writ petition is maintainable in view of Article 212(1)³of the Constitution of India and whether the proceedings of the Ethics Committee are subject to judicial review?
2. Whether this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can review the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the House?
3. If so, whether the petitioner’s expulsion was disproportionate to the misconduct attributed to  him and whether it merits judicial interference?
4. If the foregoing is answered affirmatively, whether this Court is empowered to determine the quantum of punishment that may be imposed?

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

The learned Senior Counsels, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan,  appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the impugned Ethics Committee report  and the consequential expulsion notification were actuated by mala fide and marred by gross  irregularities both procedural and substantive.

They argued that principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was denied access to  crucial material, including a video clip capturing his transgressions, under the guise of  confidentiality. This caused inevitable prejudice to the petitioner’s preparation of his defence.

It was further submitted that the petitioner was condemned unheard because the Ethics  Committee unilaterally and deliberately advanced the date of hearing to 14.06.2024 without  informing him, despite assurances that charges would be framed only after receipt of all relevant  material and that the next proceeding would be held on 19.06.2024.

Moreover, the Ethics Committee’s report dated 14.06.2024 was circulated selectively only  among members of the ruling party, and was withheld from opposition members, who being in  minority could not effectively participate in the proceedings.

Finally, it was submitted that the punishment of expulsion was disproportionately severe having  regard to the nature of the misconduct. Counsel relied on settled legal principle that a graduated  and proportionate approach to discipline is required in legislative contexts. The petitioner’s  expulsion was argued to violate his fundamental rights under Articles 14⁴(Right to Equality),  19⁵(Freedom of Speech), and 21⁶(Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution of  India.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, contended  that the writ petition was not maintainable by reason of Article 212(1) of the Constitution⁷of India, which states that the validity of any proceeding in the State Legislature shall not be subject  to judicial scrutiny on procedural grounds.

It was submitted that the impugned Ethics Committee report and the expulsion notification were  grounded on concrete evidence and were enacted following due process, approved by the  majority of the House.

The respondents further argued that the Court cannot review the proportionality or quantum of  the punishment as this would amount to interference in the validity of legislative proceedings  barred by Article 212(1).

On the issue of natural justice, it was contended that the Ethics Committee adhered to the audi  alteram partem principle and afforded the petitioner reasonable opportunity to be heard. Non appearance was attributed to the petitioner’s own applications for exemption and threats towards  the Committee when he finally appeared.

Additionally, the respondents submitted that the petitioner had a history of unruly conduct  degrading the authority of the House, for which he was previously suspended in the 200th  Session on 28.03.2022.

JUDGMENT

The Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and disposed of the matter  accordingly.

The Court rejected the maintainability objection raised under Article 212(1)⁸and clarified that  the issues raised do not fall within the bar provided under Article 212(1). It was held that judicial  review is permissible on questions touching the proportionality of punishment and infringement  of fundamental rights even when legislative disciplinary action is challenged.

Upon detailed consideration, the Court held that there is no absolute bar on constitutional courts  reviewing the proportionality of punishment imposed by the legislature against its members. The  Court found that the expulsion imposed on the petitioner was manifestly excessive and  disproportionate to the character of the misconduct.

It was further held that the period of expulsion already undergone shall be deemed suspension  and deemed sufficient punishment for the petitioner’s misconduct.

The petitioner was directed to be reinstated forthwith as a member of the Bihar Legislative  Council. However, it was clarified that the petitioner would be disentitled to claim remuneration  or monetary benefits for the period of expulsion. The petitioner would, however, remain entitled  to other perquisites and privileges as applicable to similarly placed members upon completion of  their term.

In consequence, the Press Note issued by Respondent No. 6, the Election Commission of India,  declaring a by-election for the seat held by the petitioner, was quashed, and all actions pursuant  thereto were set aside.

All pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition vis-à-vis Article 212(1) of the Constitution and  Judicial Review of Ethics Committee Proceedings

The Court declined to accept the respondents’ contention that the Ethics Committee’s decision  enjoys absolute immunity under Article 212(1) of the Constitution⁹. It discerned a vital  distinction between “Proceedings in the Legislature” and “Legislative Decisions.” The former  refers to procedural acts such as debates, motions, and other facilitative steps within the House  aimed at facilitating legislative deliberations. These procedural acts, though integral to legislative  process, are means to an end and not the culmination itself.

In contrast, “Legislative Decisions” denote the final authoritative determinations of the House.  While these decisions emerge from a coordinate branch of government, they are not inherently  immune from judicial scrutiny by Constitutional Courts. The Court applied the principle  of expression unius est exclusio alterius (express mention of one excludes the others) to hold that  Article 212(1) bars only challenges to procedural irregularities in legislative proceedings and not  to substantive decisions as such.¹⁰

Focusing on the present facts, the report submitted by the Ethics Committee recommending the  petitioner’s expulsion was an administrative function assigned by the State Legislature under  Article 208 of the Constitution. Such Rules govern internal procedures, discipline, and regulation  of the House. Established judicial precedents hold that administrative actions—even by  legislative committees—are subject to judicial review when individual rights and interests are  affected. Indeed, in Ashish Shelar and Ors. v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and Anr.¹¹, the  Court affirmed that disciplinary measures affecting a member’s right to remain in the House are  amenable to scrutiny by constitutional courts on grounds of unconstitutionality, irrationality,  arbitrariness, or gross illegality.

Consequently, the Court concluded that actions with civil consequences affecting membership,  such as expulsion, cannot claim blanket immunity under legislative privilege and thus permit the  present writ petition’s maintainability.

Issue 2: Judicial Examination of Proportionality of Punishment Imposed on a Legislator

Having confirmed the writ petition’s maintainability, the Court addressed the more nuanced  question of whether it could examine the proportionality of the punishment prescribed by the  House.

The Court embarked on a twofold analysis: first, the doctrine of proportionality itself; and  second, the role of constitutional courts in reviewing legislative disciplinary decisions.

The Doctrine of Proportionality

Proportionality, derived from the Latin proportio meaning comparative measure, is a dynamic  and fundamental legal principle requiring that any state action or disciplinary measure be  justified by sound reasoning and rational connection to its objective.

Domestically, Indian jurisprudence embraces proportionality as a standard ensuring that among  possible measures to achieve a goal, the least restrictive or injurious is chosen. Courts balance  the adverse impact on individual rights—such as liberty, equality, or expression—against the  state’s legitimate aims. The fairness of the decision-making process, the absence of  vindictiveness, respect for natural justice, mitigation considerations, and objective application of  discipline all weigh in this assessment.

This doctrine permeates multiple spheres of law:

Service and Labour Laws: Courts factor in the nature, context, and gravity of  misconduct, the employee’s history, and the effect of the punishment, tailoring penalties  accordingly. For instance, in Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development Corpn¹²., a  lifelong employee’s dismissal for losing a file was commuted to withholding increments  due to mitigating factors, while protracted, unreconciled absenteeism merited dismissal in  other circumstances.

Administrative Law: Proportionality governs government decisions in contract  blacklisting, land resumption, and regulatory penalties, requiring appropriateness and  necessity of restrictive measures, as illustrated by cases upholding or setting aside harsh  governmental actions based on their necessity and impact.

Constitutional Law: Proportionality forms the bedrock of legality when laws or  executive actions impinge constitutional rights. The Court has applied it when balancing  speech restrictions with security concerns (e.g., internet bans in disturbed regions) and  financial privacy against political transparency, leading to doctrines like the “double  proportionality standard,” exemplified in Internet & Mobile Assn. of India v. RBI.¹³

Criminal Law: Proportionality is critical in just sentencing, especially capital  punishment cases, with courts weighing aggravating and mitigating factors to align  punishment with the crime committed. It is also a guiding principle in regulating bail  conditions.

Statutory Interpretation: Courts invoke proportionality to interpret laws so that their  implementation respects legislative intent without causing undue hardship or unfairness,  aligning with fundamental constitutional values, as seen in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of  India¹⁴ and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.¹⁵

This principle likewise finds recognition in Indian legislative policy for employment conditions,  penal laws, and rules regulating employees under Article 12 entities.

International Jurisprudence

The doctrine enjoys widespread application globally:

In Germany, proportionality mandates that state interference be suitable, necessary (least  restrictive means), and balanced in terms of benefits versus harm.

The European Union, likewise applies proportionality, assessing measures for  appropriateness, legitimacy, necessity, least restrictiveness, and manifest  disproportionality.

The United States employs analogous balancing tests under strict scrutiny, requiring  government action infringing fundamental rights to be necessary to achieve a compelling  interest via the least restrictive means.

Role of Constitutional Courts in Reviewing Legislative Punishment

Constitutional courts perform a vital supervisory role in ensuring legislatures do not impose  disproportionate disciplinary measures, especially grave sanctions such as expulsion, which  effectively disenfranchise both the member and the electorate.

The Court reaffirmed precedents like Ashish Shelar¹⁶ that Article 21 safeguards impose judicial  oversight on legislative disciplinary action impacting membership rights. It further observed  in Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha¹⁷ that the power to expel a member exists but should be  exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.

Removing a member from the House affects not just the individual member’s political future but  also compromises the democratic right of their constituents to representation. Thus, a  disproportionate penalty disrupts the very fabric of representative democracy.

Constitutional courts must strike a balance—exercising restraint to respect legislative autonomy,  yet acting decisively to invalidate sanctions that are so excessive they shock fundamental notions  of fairness and justice.

The Court laid down guiding parameters for proportionality assessment, which include but are  not limited to:

 The extent of obstruction caused by the member, Whether the member’s conduct diminished the dignity of the House, The member’s prior conduct and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, The presence of less restrictive disciplinary alternatives,The context and motivation behind offensive expressions,Whether the punishment advances the House’s legitimate disciplinary aims, ∙ Weighing societal interests and electorate rights alongside disciplinary needs.¹⁸

Issue 3: Proportionality of the Petitioner’s Expulsion and Need for Judicial Interference

The Court underscores that aggression, indecency, and disrespect have no place within  parliamentary or legislative proceedings. The privilege to speak within the House must never be  weaponized to insult, demean, or defame other members, including Ministers and the Chair.

The evidence on record reveals that the petitioner’s conduct in the House was “abhorrent” and  unbecoming of a legislator. His repeated attempts to delay and obstruct the inquiry by seeking  repeated exemptions, and by refusal to cooperate, constituted a brazen challenge to the  Committee’s authority.

The exercise of disciplinary power must therefore be measured, fair, and proportionate. The  Bihar Legislative Council’s own procedural rules envisage graded disciplinary responses,  ranging from censure and reprimand to suspension or other penalties deemed appropriate.

This Court has also consistently held that disproportionate punishments violate constitutional  guarantees, particularly Articles 14¹⁹ and 21²⁰. The expulsion, in this instance, appears excessive  relative to the nature and gravity of the misconduct. It offends constitutional notions of justice  and fairness and undermines the electorate’s legal right to representation.

In sum, while members must be accountable for their conduct, punishments must be calibrated to  uphold House discipline without inflicting disproportionate harm. The Court finds that the severe  penalty of expulsion was neither justified nor necessary to maintain the dignity or order of the  Legislature.

Issue 4: Judicial Power to Determine the Quantum of Punishment

Having concluded that the expulsion is disproportionate and warrants interference, the question  arises whether this Court may itself determine the appropriate sanction for the petitioner.

Ordinarily, when a court finds disciplinary actions excessive, the matter is remanded to the  disciplinary body for reconsideration. However, the Court acknowledges circumstances  warranting deviation from normal protocol. To prevent ongoing illegality, delay, and undue  hardship from protracted reconsideration, this Court may invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction  under Article 142 of the Constitution²¹ to deliver complete justice.

Given that the petitioner has already been expelled for nearly seven months, has missed  important sessions, and that his term expires soon in 2026, further referral to the Ethics  Committee risks undue procedural delay and injustice.

Considering these factors and the substantial impact on the petitioner’s constitutional rights as  well as those of his electorate, the Court deems it appropriate to exercise its extraordinary power  to modify the punishment.

Accordingly, the Court holds that the period already undergone as expulsion shall stand  converted to suspension—a punishment adequate and proportionate to the conduct. The Ethics  Committee’s report and the resolution expelling the petitioner shall be modified to this extent.

The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith as a member of the Bihar Legislative Council. The  Court clarifies that this exercise of discretion should not be misconstrued as forgiveness or  condonation of the petitioner’s conduct.

REFERENCE(S):

1. SCC Online: “SC quashed RJD’s MLC Sunil Kumar Singh expulsion…” 2. Verdictum: “Supreme Court: No Absolute Bar On Constitutional Courts To…” 3. Supreme Court Observer: “Reaffirming proportionality in the Sunil Kumar case” 4. Indian Kanoon: Sunil Kumar Singh vs Bihar Legislative Council 5. LiveLaw: “‘Highly Excessive’ : Supreme Court Quashes Bihar Legislative …”
2. LawTrend: “Supreme Court Overturns Expulsion of RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh”
3. Hindustan Times: “SC quashes expulsion of RJD legislator…”

¹ Constitution of India 1950, art 212 (1) provides that the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State  shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.

² Sunil Kumar Singh V. Bihar Legislative Assembly (Through Secretary) And Ors. (2025) INSC 264

³ Constitution of India 1950, art 212 (1)

⁴ Constitution of India 1950, art 14

⁵ Constitution of India 1950, art 19

⁶ Constitution of India 1950, art 21

⁷ Constitution of India 1950, art 212 (1)

⁸Ibid.

⁹Ibid.

¹⁰ Sunil Kumar Singh V. Bihar Legislative Assembly (Through Secretary) And Ors. (2025) INSC 264

¹¹ (2022) 12 SCC 273

¹² (2003) 8 SCC 9, Supreme Court of India

¹³ (2020) 10 SCC 274

¹⁴ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248

¹⁵ Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273

¹⁶ Ashish Shelar & Ors. v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr., (2022) 12 SCC 273 ¹⁷ (2007) 3 SCC 184

¹⁸ Sunil Kumar Singh V. Bihar Legislative Assembly (Through Secretary) And Ors. (2025) INSC 264

¹⁹ Ibid 4

²⁰ Ibid 6

²¹ Constitution of India 1950, art 142 grants the Supreme Court the authority to ensure complete justice in any case  before it.