Abu Azmi is 333rd suspended Maharashtra MLA, but almost half of them got a reprieve

Suspension from the Assembly is a disciplinary action aimed at maintaining order, discipline, and respect for parliamentary procedures. Historical data reveals that since the inception of the Maharashtra Assembly in 1960, only 52% of suspended legislators (172 of 333) have actually served out their entire suspension periods, with Speakers generally showing leniency.

Suspension in Maharashtra Assembly

In recent decades, the state has become increasingly lenient in reversing suspensions. Since 1999, and the rise of non-Congress parties in Maharashtra around that time, 137 MLAs have been suspended, but nearly 85% (116 MLAs) of these suspensions were later revoked.

Prior to 1999, Speakers took a more rigid approach, ensuring that suspended members served their full punishment. Between 1960 and 1999, 196 MLAs were suspended, with only 21% (44 MLAs) seeing their suspensions revoked.

According to the “Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business” in the Lok Sabha, which serves as a template for most state Assemblies, a legislator can be suspended for disregarding the authority of the Speaker. During this period, the suspended legislator is prohibited from attending the Assembly.

“The Speaker, may, if deems it necessary, name a member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business thereof… If a member is so named by the Speaker, the Speaker shall, on a motion being made forthwith put the question that the member (naming such member) be suspended from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session,” the rules state.

Unlike states like Odisha, where the suspension of a legislator is limited to a maximum of seven working days, Maharashtra has no specific provisions on the maximum length of suspensions.

The range of disciplinary actions varies from a one-day suspension to the outright cancellation of a legislator’s membership. The only legislator to have faced such an extreme penalty in Maharashtra was the Forward Bloc’s Jambuwantrao Dhote, whose membership was revoked in 1964 after he threw a paperweight while being escorted from the House by security officers.

Suspensions by party

The most recent major suspension controversy, which occurred in 2021, had prompted the Supreme Court to intervene and revoke several suspensions.

On July 5, 2021, then Leader of the Opposition Devendra Fadnavis had objected to the tabling of a resolution by the Maha Vikas Aghadi government demanding that the Centre release data on OBCs to facilitate reservation for them in local bodies in Maharashtra. In response, several BJP MLAs stormed the well of the House, snatched the mace, and uprooted microphones. Shiv Sena MLA Bhaskar Jadhav, who was presiding over the session, adjourned the House for 10 minutes. After the adjournment, some BJP MLAs allegedly entered Jadhav’s chamber and threatened, abused, and misbehaved with him.

Subsequently, state Parliamentary Affairs Minister Anil Parab moved a resolution to suspend 12 BJP MLAs for a year. The suspended MLAs filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the suspension.

In January 2022, the Supreme Court set aside the suspension, ruling that suspension should be short-term disciplinary measures to restore order in the Assembly. Prolonged suspensions, the SC stated, are irrational and go beyond the intent of Rule 53, which allows for the withdrawal of a member only for the remainder of the day or, in cases of repeated misconduct, for the rest of the session.

The SC said that the one-year suspension was prima facie unconstitutional as it went beyond the six-month limit – beyond which the House may declare a seat vacant as per the Representation of the People Act – and amounted to “not punishing the member but punishing the constituency as a whole”.

The SC emphasised that long-term suspensions leave the member’s constituency unrepresented, undermining democratic values. Furthermore, the apex court warned that a government with a slim majority could manipulate such suspensions to reduce Opposition representation, thereby stifling meaningful debate and participation in the House.