Supreme Court of India· 25 February 2025
Whether the instant Writ Petition is maintainable in view of Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India and whether the proceedings of the Ethics Committee of a State Legislative Council are amenable to judicial review?
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors.
2025 INSC 264 · WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 530 OF 2024
Coram: Surya Kant; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Answer
No absolute bar exists. Article 212(1) protects only 'Proceedings in the Legislature' from scrutiny for procedural irregularity; the Ethics Committee's recommendation is an administrative function under Article 208, not a 'Legislative Decision' or a 'Proceeding in the Legislature', so it remains open to judicial review for illegality or unconstitutionality.
Headnote
Constitution of India — Art. 212(1), Art. 208 — Ethics Committee action — Administrative, not legislative —
Constitution of India — Art. 212(1) — Proceedings in the Legislature vs. Legislative Decision — Ethics Committee action reviewable —
Held: Article 212(1) bars scrutiny only of 'Proceedings in the Legislature' for procedural irregularity; it does not oust judicial review of a 'Legislative Decision' or an administrative action of a House committee for illegality or unconstitutionality. The Ethics Committee's recommendation, being administrative under Article 208, is neither, and remains reviewable. (¶23)
Constitution of India — Art. 14, Art. 21 — Doctrine of proportionality — Applies to House disciplinary action —
Held further: There is no absolute bar on Constitutional Courts examining the proportionality of a punishment imposed by the House on a member while reviewing the validity of that action. Courts intervene only when the punishment prescribed is so disproportionate that it shocks the intrinsic sense of justice. (¶60, 62)
Constitution of India — Art. 142 — Expulsion disproportionate — Reinstatement directed —
Held further: The petitioner's expulsion was excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. Invoking Article 142 to do complete justice, the period already undergone is deemed a period of suspension, the Impugned Report and Notification are modified to that extent, and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated. (¶77, 86)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 15In this regard, we deem it apposite to underscore the applicability of the principle of ‘expression unius est exclusion alterius’, namely, that whatever has not been included has, by implication, been excluded. Applying the aforesaid principle, we have no doubt in concluding that the prohibition under Article 212(1) operates only with respect to the scrutiny of ‘Proceedings in the Legislature’ on the touchstone of ‘Irregularity of Procedure’. It does not oust the power of judicial review of the decisions of the Legislature, whether Legislative or Administrative, on the grounds of illegality or unconstitutionality.
Paragraph 17Reverting to the facts of the instant case, the Impugned Report recommending the expulsion of the Petitioner was made by the Ethics Committee in the discharge of its administrative functions. These functions have been assigned in the Rules framed by the State Legislature under Article 208 of the Constitution. The Rules so enacted govern the internal functioning, discipline of the House and the procedure by which the House regulates its affairs. However, such administrative actions, even though referable to the Rules formulated under Article 208 of the Constitution, do not constitute the legislative functions of the House. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the legislative functions pertain to lawmaking, deliberation, and policy formulation, whereas the present action of the Ethics Committee is purely administrative in nature, aimed at enforcing discipline and ethical standards amongst the members of the House.
Paragraph 23Consequently, on an overall consideration of legal position, we are of the view that the Respondent’s argument qua maintainability of the Writ Petition must fail. We hold that the action of the Ethics Committee neither forms part of the ‘Proceedings of the Legislature’ nor is it tantamount to a ‘Legislative Decision’. Accordingly, entertaining the instant petition would not fall foul of the restrictions imposed by Article 212 (1) of the Constitution. E.2. Can the Courts examine the proportionality of punishment imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by the House?
Acts & Sections
Art. 212(1) Constitution of IndiaArt. 208 Constitution of IndiaArt. 14 Constitution of IndiaArt. 21 Constitution of IndiaArt. 142 Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →