Sunil Kumar Singh Vs Bihar Legislative Council W.p.(c) No. 530/2024 -

In a landmark judgment that carefully treads the line between judicial restraint and constitutional oversight, the Supreme Court of India in Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council (W.P.(C) No. 530/2024) has once again affirmed the centrality of proportionality, due process, and representative democracy in our constitutional framework.

The case concerned Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, a member of the Bihar Legislative Council and a representative of the Rashtriya Janata Dal, who was expelled by the Council in July 2024. The expulsion stemmed from allegations that Singh made derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister. However, the Ethics Committee’s inquiry was opaque, the process hurried, and the punishment—outright expulsion—harsh and arguably disproportionate.

The Supreme Court, through a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, did not merely quash the expulsion but transformed it into a reasoned intervention that restores balance between legislative privilege and constitutional values. The Court made it clear: while the legislature has disciplinary powers, those powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in a manner that silences the voice of an elected representative without procedural and substantive fairness.

Beyond Legislative Immunity: Scope of Judicial Review

One of the most critical facets of the judgment was the rejection of the notion that such expulsions fall completely outside the scope of judicial scrutiny under Article 212. While Article 212 insulates legislative "proceedings" from court interference, the Court rightly distinguished between internal deliberations and punitive actions that impact constitutional rights and the democratic process.

The Court reminded us that parliamentary privilege is not parliamentary supremacy. It held that courts could intervene where expulsion decisions appear to be arbitrary, mala fide, or disproportionate. In this case, it found the punishment lacked a calibrated response to the alleged misconduct and amounted to a denial of the electorate’s right to be represented.

Proportionality: A Constitutional Compass

At the heart of the ruling lies the reaffirmation of the doctrine of proportionality—a principle deeply embedded in modern constitutional law and consistently upheld by the Indian judiciary

in landmark decisions such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The Supreme Court concluded that while Singh may have engaged in conduct warranting censure, outright expulsion was excessive. The Court, invoking Article 142, converted the expulsion into a suspension that would cover the time already served (seven months), allowing Singh to be reinstated—though without retrospective financial benefits.

This careful calibration reflects the Court’s effort to strike a balance—preserving legislative autonomy while ensuring accountability and fairness.

Democratic Implications

This verdict carries significant implications for India’s parliamentary democracy:

• Preservation of Electoral Will: By reinstating an elected legislator, the Court protected not just Singh’s rights but the rights of his constituents—reminding all institutions that democracy belongs to the people.

• Guardrails for Legislative Discipline: Legislatures now have a clear judicial precedent that disciplinary powers must pass the test of necessity and fairness.

• Judicial Responsibility as Constitutional Watchdog: The judgment reinforces the Court’s role as a guardian of representative democracy—not to interfere in governance, but to ensure that democratic norms are not sacrificed at the altar of political convenience.

A Message for the Times

In an era where legislative bodies across the country are increasingly using their disciplinary powers as tools of political retribution, Sunil Kumar Singh serves as a reminder that representation cannot be curtailed without rigorous justification. Expulsion is not a mere sanction—it is a constitutional rupture, and must be treated with utmost care.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council reinforces the idea that power, whether legislative or executive, must be exercised within the bounds of reason and justice. In defending the principle of proportionality and the sanctity of

representation, the Court has done more than protect one legislator—it has protected the democratic voice of the people.

This judgment will likely become a touchstone for future cases involving legislative discipline. It reminds us that in a constitutional democracy, neither privilege nor power can be absolute—they must be accountable, proportionate, and just.