Supreme Court notice to Maharashtra Assembly on plea challenging suspension of 12 BJP MLAs

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on a plea by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) law makers, led by Ashish Shelar, challenging its resolution suspending 12 BJP Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) for a year [Ashish Shelar vs Maharashtra Legislative Assembly]..A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar observed that the petition raises an "issue of importance" while questioning the assembly for its failure to follow the privilege rules."If there a procedure that it to be followed and is not followed. Can you say that is a legislative procedure? When you have privilege rules explicitly then resolution has to show why was that rule not exercised," the Court remarked.The Court also said that it can exercise its powers of judicial review to examine the resolution of the assembly."This court has held that this court can even interfere in a legislation in exercise of judicial review power. Then why cannot we look into this resolution," the Bench stated.In July this year, 12 BJP legislators were suspended from the Assembly for one year after the State government accused them of "misbehaving" with Presiding Officer Bhaskar Jadhav in the Speaker's chamber, on the first day of the monsoon session.The suspended MLAs are Dr. Sanjay Kute, Ashish Shelar, Abhimanyu Pawar, Girish Mahajan, Atul Bhatkhalkar, Harish Pimple, Jaikumar Rawal, Yogesh Sagar, Narayan Kuche, Bunty Bhangdiya, Parag Alvani and Ram Satpute..Senior Advocate Harish Salve appearing for some of the suspended legislators argued that a "resolution is a purely political process.""Skirmishes happen in the house all the time. When speaker asks someone to go out. They apologise and then again sit back in the house," Salve submitted. ."Parliament is the creature of tradition and practices. What lordships has before you is a sui generis excercise. No notice is brought here. It's minister of parliamentary affairs which moved the resolution. It raises far reaching question that whether a member's right to attend the house and represent his party be disrupted by a political resolution. This is the point you have to consider," Salve argued. .Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the petitioner, further stated that "this was a too important case to be decided under Article 226 by the High Court.".The Bench proceeded to issue notice but declined to pass any interim order..Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and C Aryama Sundaram represented the respondents whereas Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Siddharth Bhatnagar also appeared for the petitioner legislators. The matter will now be heard on January 11, 2022. .[Read Full Thread]