Legislative Suspension and Privileges: Supreme Court Strikes Down Tamil Nadu Assembly Resolution

The case of Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others vs. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly dealt with the suspension of members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Tamil Nadu and their challenge against the decision, claiming a violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court examined whether the suspension and the deprivation of salaries and other benefits were legally valid.

Background of the Case

On February 19, 2015, during a session of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, members of the opposition party DMDK allegedly engaged in unruly behavior. The Speaker ordered the Marshalls to remove one member, following which other members ran towards the Speaker’s podium. The Speaker immediately passed an order suspending 19 members for the remainder of the session.

Following this, the Speaker referred the matter to the Privileges Committee to determine whether their conduct constituted a breach of privilege. The Privileges Committee found six MLAs guilty of violating assembly privileges and recommended:

• A suspension of 10 days from the next session.
• A suspension of salary and benefits during the suspension period.

The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly adopted this recommendation through a resolution passed on March 31, 2015.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The six MLAs approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking to strike down the resolution. Their arguments were:

• The decision to suspend them for two separate periods (current and next session) exceeded the assembly’s authority under Article 194.
• The Privileges Committee acted in violation of natural justice by relying on video evidence without allowing the MLAs to view it or respond.
• The assembly does not have the authority to withhold salaries under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries Act, 1951.
• The suspension violated fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 14, and 21 of the Constitution.
• The assembly lacked authority to seize office premises and residential accommodations allotted to them.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly countered:

• The Speaker has absolute authority over the proceedings of the House.
• The Privileges Committee followed the due process before passing its recommendations.
• The Speaker and members of the House witnessed the incident firsthand, and their decision was justified.
• The restriction on salaries and other benefits was part of the penalty imposed.
• The Court had limited jurisdiction to interfere in matters related to legislative privileges.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court first examined whether the writ petition under Article 32 was maintainable. The Court clarified that while legislative privileges are not subject to judicial review in normal circumstances, cases involving violation of fundamental rights can be entertained.

Violation of Free Speech (Article 19(1)(a))

The Court rejected the argument that suspension violated free speech, noting that:

• Article 105 and 194 grant freedom of speech in Parliament and State Legislatures but do not make it absolute.
• Legislative bodies have the authority to regulate internal proceedings and maintain decorum.
• The suspension did not prevent the MLAs from expressing their views outside the assembly.

Violation of Right to Occupation (Article 19(1)(g))

The Court ruled that serving as an MLA is a public office, not an occupation covered under Article 19(1)(g). The economic benefits (salary, allowances) associated with the position do not make it an occupation under fundamental rights.

Violation of Natural Justice

The Court found a procedural violation in the Privileges Committee’s process:

• The Committee relied on video recordings to conclude that the MLAs breached privilege.
• The MLAs were not given a copy of the video or an opportunity to view and comment on it.
• The right to respond to evidence is a fundamental principle of natural justice.

The failure to provide the video evidence resulted in an unfair process, leading the Court to strike down the resolution.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The March 31, 2015 resolution suspending the MLAs for 10 additional days was unconstitutional and set aside.
• The MLAs’ salaries and benefits were ordered to be restored.
• The assembly’s decision to withhold office spaces and residences was overturned.
• The Tamil Nadu Assembly had the right to maintain discipline, but the process must be fair and follow principles of natural justice.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling sets an important precedent:

• Legislative privileges do not override fundamental rights.
• Natural justice applies to disciplinary proceedings in legislative assemblies.
• Suspension of MLAs cannot be used as a political tool to silence opposition.
• Assemblies must ensure due process before taking action against members.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others vs. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly is a landmark ruling reinforcing natural justice in legislative proceedings. While assemblies have powers to regulate internal matters, they cannot act arbitrarily. This judgment ensures that elected representatives receive a fair hearing before disciplinary action is imposed.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Alagaapuram R. Mohan vs Tamil Nadu Legislati Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 12-02-2016-1741852600058.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by J. Chelameswar
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category