Supreme Court Allows Judicial Review of Legislative Punishments

Reinstates RJD Leader Sunil Kumar Singh in Bihar

February 27, 2025

The Supreme Court has ruled that laws and major decisions made by a legislature can be challenged and reviewed by the judiciary, explaining that judicial immunity applies only to how lawmakers conduct internal debates or voting procedures, even if there are claims of procedural mistakes.

Setting aside the expulsion of Sunil Kumar Singh, a Rashtriya Janata Dal party representative, from the Bihar legislative council, Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh introduced a set of guidelines affirming that judicial oversight applies to decisions expelling or suspending members, as reported by The Times of India.

The guidelines for courts to assess whether a punishment are reasonable include checking how disruptive a member’s actions were, whether they harmed the dignity of the legislative body, and whether the member expressed regret. Courts must also consider whether milder steps could have been used, according to the ruling.

Singh was expelled on July 26, 2024, for making derogatory remarks about Chief Minister Nitish Kumar during a heated exchange in the House. He allegedly mocked the Chief Minister by calling him “Paltu Ram” – a Hindi slang used to describe someone who frequently changes their stance or loyalties, especially in politics. Singh imitated Kumar’s body language, and sarcastically commented on his political career. The Ethics Committee of the Bihar Legislative Council found Singh’s conduct “abhorrent” and “unbecoming of a legislator,” leading to his expulsion.

“We are of the view that scrutiny of the punishment given to members by the House on the above mentioned framework will ensure that the legislative actions are justified, necessary and balanced, protecting both the integrity of the legislative body and the rights of its members, as well as the larger societal objective,” said the bench. “It is also imperative that such legislative action remains mindful of the fundamental principle that the purpose of imposing punishment is not to serve as a tool for retribution but rather to uphold and enforce discipline within the House.”

The Court based its ruling on earlier decisions that recognised a legislature’s right to discipline or expel members, but also confirmed that such decisions should not be beyond review. In that ruling, a five-judge bench had said, “The power of expulsion is not contrary to a democratic process. It is rather part of the guarantee of a democratic process. Further, expulsion is not a decision by a single person. It is a decision taken by the representatives of the rest of the country. Finally, the power of expulsion does not bar a member from standing for re-election or the constituency from electing that member once again.”

The crux of the ruling is that while lawmakers must have the freedom to conduct debates and pass laws without undue interference, an absolute shield from judicial review could allow unconstitutional or arbitrary decisions to go unchecked.