Delhi High Court sets aside suspension of seven BJP MLAs

New Delhi [India], March 6 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has set aside the suspension of seven BJP MLAs from the Delhi Legislative Assembly for an indefinite time. They had challenged their suspension before the High Court.

These MLAs were suspended on February 16 over a disturbance caused during an address by the LG in the Budget session of the Delhi Assembly on February 15.

Justice Subramonium Prasad allowed the three petitions moved by seven MLAs and set aside their suspension.

A detailed judgement is yet to be uploaded.

The Delhi High Court on February 27, reserved its order on the pleas of seven BJP MLAs who challenged their suspension from the Delhi legislative Assembly for an indefinite period.

During the hearing, the High Court had asked the privilege committee to hold its hand from taking action. The matter was referred to the committee after the suspension.

BJP MLAs Vijender Gupta, Ajay Kumar Mahavar, Abhay Verma, Anil Kumar Vajpayee, OP Sharma, Mohan Singh Bisht and Jitendra Mahajan challenged their suspension.

These seven MLAs were suspended for allegedly disturbing the Delhi Assembly on February 15 during an address by the LG.

The High Court reserved its order after hearing the arguments by Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, Kirti Uppal and Pavan Narang for the MLAs. Senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog and advocate Sameer Vasisht appeared for the respondent.

It is contended that the motion for suspension of MLAs was unconstitutional and violative of their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

The senior advocates submitted that they were punished for their alleged misconduct by being marshalled out by the Speaker. Then, how can a motion be passed in this regard.

How can they be punished twice for a single act of violation, the counsel argued.

It was further argued that in passing the motion, the procedures were not followed as it had mentioned MLAs against whom it was passed. The matter was also referred to the privilege committee.

Secondly, the MLAs have been suspended until the disposal of the matter by the privilege committee. This is an indefinite period. The suspension can not be for an indefinite period.

The Counsels further argued that MLAs represent a constituency and that the same cannot be left unrepresented for an indefinite period.

It was also argued that the MLAs’ right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India has also been violated. They are representatives of people in their constituency and therefore the rights of the people are also violated.

During the earlier hearing, the counsels for MLAs also submitted that there were some political comments made on the issue like What you did with Rajya Sabha members of AAP.

This matter is being compared to that of Raaghav Chaddha to give it a political colour, the counsels said.

It should not be done while the matter is before the court of law, the counsel had submitted.

Senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog had appeared for Delhi Legislative Assembly Speaker and submitted.

It was argued that an MLA can not be suspended for an indefinite period of time.

Senior advocate Jayant Mehta submitted that seven out of eight MLSs have been suspended for an indefinite, undefined period of time for representing the true factual position before the LG during his address on February 15, 2024.

He had also submitted that a motion for suspension of seven BJP MLs was passed with a voice vote for an indefinite period on February 16, 2024.

The court asked how the rules were violated and whether a petition can be heard when a privilege committee is hearing the matter.

Senior advocate Mehta submitted that the Supreme Court has already said that you can not suspend for an indefinite period.

There is a graded punishment that has to be followed. The privilege committee is hearing the matter and the punishment has been given, he added.

The maximum punishment can be given for three days in the first incident. This is the first punishment, Mehta submitted.

Senior advocate Jayant Mehta submitted that it is punishment if I am not allowed to participate as an MLA.

The motion for suspension of BJP MLAs was introduced by AAP MLA Dilip Pandey and passed by a voice vote.

It was submitted on behalf of MLA Ajay Kumar Mahavar that the LG was addressing the House on February 15. Certain assertions were made in the speech of LG that were factually. It was objected to. My objection was factual and to ensure the sanctity of the house is maintained. Despite this, seven out of eight MLAs were marshalled out, senior advocate Mehta submitted.

Interestingly, some of the MLAs of the ruling party were also disturbing the house, he added.

It was also stated that they were allowed to attend the post-lunch session. Out of nowhere and contrary to the rules, a motion was moved by a member of the ruling party and it was passed by a voice vote.

Justice Prasad had said, “When you are marshalled out, according to you that is in compliance of Rule 44. Your principal argument is that you are now being punished twice for the same argument. Let’s assume a person is so disorderly that once you have been marshalled out does it take away the right of the privileges committee to examine if a stricter punishment is needed to be imposed?”

The bench also said that there is a limitation to interference with the affairs of the house.

Delhi BJP MLAs, who were suspended for the remainder of the Budget session of the Delhi Assembly, have moved to the Delhi High Court and challenged the decision of their suspension.

The matter was mentioned before the bench of acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, which allowed for a listing of the matter.

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta mentioned the matter before the bench on behalf of the BJP MLAs. It was submitted that the suspension of opposition MLAs is completely wrong and their right to participate in the proceedings is being affected.

Mehta, while mentioning it, also submitted that the motion to suspend the MLAs is unconstitutional and contrary to the rules.

The budget session of the Delhi assembly began on February 15, 2024, with the LG outlining the policies, programmes and work of the AAP-led Delhi government in the fields of education, health, transport, social welfare, infrastructure, etc.

It was alleged that as LG Saxena began his speech mentioning AAP’s achievements, BJP MLA and former leader of opposition Vijender Gupta interrupted. Later, other BJP MLAs also continued interrupting LG’s speech while he highlighted various achievements of the government.