HC allows BJP MLA Vijender Gupta to attend Delhi budget session

“There is no gain saying that the Members of the Legislative Assembly or any other elected house have to maintain the dignity of the house in order to play a positive role owing to the mandate of the people,” Justice Singh said.

Noting that this was the first suspension meted out to Gupta, the court further left open questions of law pertaining to certain provisions of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business Rules governing the Delhi Legislative Assembly to be decided in an appropriate case.

The court perused the Supreme Court’s decision in another case from Maharashtra where suspension of a member was also for a year and the rules and said that as per “Rule 277, the suspension is graded” and in view of this decision, suspension beyond the remainder of the session would be contrary to law.

The HC observed that under Rule 277 (1), the speaker can direct “any MLA to be suspended for the remainder of the day’s sitting if the conduct is disorderly. Rule 277(3)(b) clearly requires that, on the first occasion, the suspension can only be for three sittings. On the second occasion the suspension can be for seven sittings and thereafter for the remainder of the session, unless otherwise directed by the House”.

“The budget session of the Delhi Legislative Assembly is currently ongoing and the petitioner has already remained suspended for four days (March 21-24)…In view of the above discussion, the suspension period, being of one year, deserves to be set aside. It is accordingly directed that the petitioner would be permitted to attend the DLA from Monday i.e., 27th March, 2023 till the remainder of the current session. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms,” the court said.

“Needless to add that the petitioner shall also maintain the dignity of the house,” the court said, adding that it had not examined the merits of Gupta’s suspension.

Appearing for Gupta, senior advocate Jayant Mehta argued that as per Rule 277 of the rules which governs the proceedings in the Delhi Legislative Assembly, the suspension is to be in a “graded manner”. He submitted that the entire debate arose due to a privilege motion moved by Gupta in respect of alleged selected publication of part of the budget which was yet to be presented, in the social media, by senior functionaries of the GNCTD.

Advocate Sameer Vashisht, counsel for legislative assembly and the speaker relied on Sections 37 and 18 of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act that such “suspensions are not to be enquired into by any court”. He submitted that in Gupta’s case, the suspension is by the House itself and not by the Speaker, therefore the House is fully empowered to issue punishments of a higher nature than what is prescribed under Rule 277. He relied on Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business Rules.

Vashisht submitted that the Leader of Opposition has approached the Speaker who is still considering the matter and hence the matter may be adjourned to March 28. When the court enquired till when the budget session was to continue, it was informed that as of now it was to continue till March 27, subject to any extensions.

In his plea, Gupta referred to Finance Minister Kailash Gahlot’s statement of March 20 which read, “Nearly Rs 20,000 crore has been allocated for capital expenditure next year whereas the allocation for advertisements is Rs 550 crore which is similar to the last year”, alleging that this was a breach of privilege as budget was not tablet yet and was confidential.

The plea states that this act of suspension is unjust, unfair, unreasonable and against the tenets of the settled position of law but also violative of Powers and Privileges of the members of the House as enshrined under Article 194 of the Constitution of India.

Gupta has alleged that his suspension is not an extemporaneous incident but is a result of a “well-designed conspiracy and a well-planned strategy to scuttle the voice of the opposition and ignore the serious breach committed by the Minister”.