Read Time: 08 minutes

• An eloquence of top lawyers appeared for the Bharatiya Janta Party MLA’s and the state of Maharashtra.

• On July 5, 2021, 12 BJP MLA's were suspended on account of "misbehaviour". It is against this resolution that they approached Supreme Court.

---

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in a plea filed by Bhartiya Janta Party MLA's challenging the resolution passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly suspending the BJP MLA's for a period of one year over alleged misbehavior with the presiding officer.

A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice CT Ravikumar said that,

"Resolution may be a matter of majority but there has to be a rational approach towards the direction given."

The petition has been filed challenging the suspension of 12 BJP MLAs - Sanjay Kute, Ashish Shelar, Abhimanyu Pawar, Girish Mahajan, Atul Bhatkalkar, Parag Alavni, Harish Pimpale, Ram Satpute, Vijay Kumar Rawal, Yogesh Sagar, Narayan Kuche and Kirtikumar Bangdia  stating that under the Maharashtra Legislative Council Rules, Rule 59, the Speaker has the sole right to suspend members on the ground of unruly behavior, however, in this case, the suspension has taken place after a resolution of the assembly. 

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the MLAs submitted that the resolution curtails the right of the petitioner to enter the house.

Whereas Senior Advocate Harish Salve who also appeared for the MLA,
"The house can pass on privilege, this is not in motion for the break of privilege. The speaker can also prevent members from disturbing the house."

Salve referring to the role Speaker said, "The resolution suggests that they misbehaved in the house, you do not punish a member but protect the sanctity of the house, you ask the member to absent himself."

Salve further argued that there is no provision for suspension of a member for a year, salve said, "You go out for one day, you go out for the next day or you go out for the rest of the session."

"Parliament is a creature of tradition and practices and your Lordships have defined the remit of it, it is a completely sui generis exercise," Salve added.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul also appearing for the MLA added that no prior notice has been given, they were suspended for a year without any opportunity to put forward their case.

Whereas Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram appearing for the the Respondent Assembly said that the resolution has not been passed under Rule 53 of the MLS Rules rather under Article 194 of the Constitution. "Your lordship will find that this power has been recognized in the Allahabad HC judgment of Justice Sapru," Sundaram added. 

In addition to this Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave also appearing for the State of Maharashtra submitted that "They admit the misconduct, Your Lordship then what needs to consider is whether the punishment was inappropriate or appropriate."

After hearing the matter at length the Court issued a notice returnable on January 11, 2022, while stating that "the pendency of the matter will not come in way of parties to approach the house, and the house may take this into account."

According to TOI, The presiding officer, Bhaskar Jadhav said that Devendra Fadnavis insisted he be allowed to speak first on proposal reservation of OBCs.

"So I allowed him to speak. Later, Chhagan Bhujbal answered Fadnavis with evidence, which is why he & BJP became uneasy," he said.
"I announced a 10-minute break & went to Speaker's chamber. Fadnavis & other BJP leaders came & abused me. They tried to attack me. I tried to tell them that CCTV camera was there. That is why 12 BJP members were by-rule suspended from Maharashtra Assembly," Bhaskar added

Case Title: Ashish Shelar and Ors. Vs. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly