In this case, according to the Supreme Court, the State Government cannot argue that Rules of Business were not followed throughout its decision-making process when the Cabinet establishes a committee and the latter’s acts are approved by the Minister and the rest of the Council. The Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. case was decided by a bench consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath, and they upheld the subcommittee’s decisions by ruling that the rules of business were followed because the subcommittee was only carrying out its duties on behalf of the entire Council of Ministers.
FACTS:
To J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (“JKSL”) in the Large-Scale Industrial Area of Kota (“LIA, Kota”), the State of Rajasthan granted a leasehold allocation of land (“Land”). The allocation was decided in accordance with the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act of 1956 and the State Government’s industrial policy. The Rajasthan State Industrial and Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (“RSIMDC”) were established to carry out development projects throughout the State while the lease was still in effect. Following its division into two parts, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (“RIICO”) took over as the immediate successor to RSIMDC. The RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 (“1979 Rules”) were established to manage RIICO’s operations with regard to areas under its ownership. In 1998, JKSL was deemed to be a sick firm, and on the directives of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (“AAIFR”), M/s. Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. (“Respondent No.1”) took over JKSL’s operations. A change was made to the lease of land originally granted to JKSL in favour of Respondent No. 1. After a while, Respondent No. 1 was unable to resuscitate JKSL’s industrial divisions. Respondent No. 1 then presented a plan to RIICO for changing the leased land’s use from industrial to commercial and for subdividing the land. In 2018, RIICO authorized the subdivision and conversion of land; nevertheless, the Model Code of Conduct went into effect the very following day in anticipation of the forthcoming Rajasthan State Assembly Elections. Following the 2018 elections in Rajasthan, which resulted in a new administration, the conversion of leased land came under examination. On January 1, 2019, the newly elected Council of Ministers established a Cabinet Committee to examine actions performed by the former ruling administration during the six-month period prior to the elections. The approvals granted to Respondent No. 1 were revoked by order of the State Government to RIICO. Which were newly won the state assembly election so respondent no.1 file the case in the High Court under article 226 of the constitution. The Cabinet Committee’s decision and RIICO’s actions to revoke the allocation to Respondent No. 1 were both overturned by the High Court. Following that, RIICO and the State Government chose to appeal to the Supreme Court.
LAW RELATED TO THE CASE:
Article 138. Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
(1) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters in the Union List as Parliament may by law confer
(2) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction, and powers with respect to any matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State may by special agreement confer if Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court
Article 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto, and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
LEGAL ISSUE
1) Whether the action taken by the Riico without the cabinet interference is valid or not
2) Whether the Riico has the power to allot the land to the petitioner or not
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
The first Respondent contested the appeal on the grounds that the government judgment is illegal if it does not follow the Rules of Business established under Article 166(3) of the Indian Constitution. The Industries Department is responsible for handling RIICO-related issues, and the Minister for Industries would serve as the nodal authority for making final decisions in this regard. The decision to revoke the lease and subdivide the land is invalid because the Minister for Industries was not involved in the Cabinet Committee or when the final decision was made. Riico is not allowed to allot the land to anyone, so the land allotted to the petitioner is invalid
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:
The lease deed was renewed by the District Collector and not by the RIICO since the State Government, which is a party to the petitioner’s proceedings, was involved. According to the notification dated 18.09.1979, the State Government transferred the industrial areas developed and maintained by the Department of Industries to RIICO. As a result, the largest industrial area in Kota, where the subject land is located, was also transferred to RIICO by the State Government via a notification dated 28.09.1979. Therefore, as it is also authorized for the lands that have already been allocated, the RIICO is qualified to provide permissions or approvals under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1959. In order to build affordable housing under the CMJAY program, the petitioner company requested permission from the District Collector. Under this particular program, the District Collector had the right to provide permission regardless of whether the land was owned by the State Government or the RIICO. The fact that the District Collector personally sought the RIICO’s advice in this matter is clear evidence that the RIICO controlled the aforementioned land.
JUDGMENT:
One cannot claim that the State Government violated the Rules of Business when the Cabinet Sub-Committee is only acting on behalf of the entire Council of Ministers. The Bench noted that the Committees had been established by the Council of Ministers to investigate various anomalies. The investigation of the actions taken by RIICO and its alleged abuse of inexistent powers in favour of Respondent No. 1 was also given to a specific committee. It was stated that governance needed to be done in a practical and effective way. The Rules of Business also advocates for collective governance by the Council of Ministers in terms of recommendations made to the Governor. As a result, the Bench determined that the Council had a collective say in the decision to form subcommittees to review decisions made by the previous administration, including those involving activities by RIICO. The Bench determined that the subcommittee was acting on behalf of the full Council of Ministers when it advised Respondent No. 1 to revoke the licenses and approvals. As a result, the Rajasthan Rules of Business were not broken. The decision of the High Court has been overturned
It was held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Alliance of Digital India Foundation Vs Competition Commission of India & Ors that on April 24, It is made clear that the observations made herein are only to the extent of deciding the present law before this Court and shall not tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case and the same is therefore, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties, to be taken at an appropriate proceeding. It is the conclusion of the Delhi High Court.
FACTS
The judgment is made by the learned Single Judge bench “Hon’ble Mr JusticeTushar Rao Gedela” On 24 April 2023.
The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition that the following facts shorn of all unnecessary details and germane and relevant to decide the dispute are as under: -1. On 20.02.2020, an anonymous informant filed an information before the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as “CCI”) under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) against Respondent No. 2 – 5 (collectively referred to as ‘Google’) (First Information). The CCI registered the First Information as Case No. 07 of 2020. 2. Thereafter, on 09.11.2020, the CCI issued a prima facie order under Section 26(1) of the Act in Case No. 7 of 2020 directing the Office of the Director General (DG) to investigate Google. 3. Subsequently, on 29.06.2021, a second informant (Match Group Inc.) (Respondent No. 6 herein) filed information before the CCI against Google under Section 19 of the Act (Second Information). The Commission registered the Second Information as Case No. 14 of 2021. The same was followed by an application for interim relief filed by Alliance of Digital India Foundation (Petitioner) against Google on 06.10.2021 (First IRA) in Case No. 07 of 2020 and Case No. 14 of 2021, seeking ad-interim relief restraining Google from implementing its Payments Policy under Section 33 of the Act. 4. That thereafter, on 18.10.2021, Petitioner filed a piece of information against Google under Section 19 of the Act (Third Information). The CCI registered the Third Information as Case No. 35 of 2021, which was finally clubbed by Case Nos. 07 of 2020, 14 of 2021 vide its Order dated 02.11.2021. 5. Consequently, from 16.03.2022 till 01.09.2022, the proceedings of these cases moved in full swing by the filing of an investigation report by the DG, which was subsequently followed by its response filed by Google, and the detailed hearings conducted thereafter by the CCI. All such proceedings reached their conclusion by CCI and the matters were reserved for orders. 6. After the conclusion of CCI oral hearings and when the final order was reserved, Google swiftly announced a user choice billing (UCB) pilot program for non-gaming app developers in India on 01.09.2022. 7. The CCI passed the final order in Case No. 07 of 2020, 14 of 2021 and 35 of 2021, which was challenged by Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 by filing a statutory appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). 8. Therein, Google, on 25.01.2023, submitted its Compliance Report on its supposed implementation of the eight remedial directions given by the CCI. 9. To the said Compliance Report filed by Google, Petitioner filed three applications, one after the other, under Section 42 of the Act, before the CCI, mainly for causing an inquiry into the compliance report filed by Google along with certain other prayers. That all such applications filed before CCI on 31.01.2023, 06.03.2023, and 28.03.2023 under Section 42 of the Act are still impending adjudication to date.
APPELLANT‘S CONTENTION
At the outset, Mr Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interpretation of Section 15 of the Act, insofar as the CCI is concerned, is no more res integra since this Court in Cadd Systems and Services Private Limited vs. Competition Commission of India reported in AIR 2019 Del 194, categorically has, after examining the decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Competition Commission of India reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8032 is also the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.K. Srinivasan and Others vs. the State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1987) 1 SCC 658and State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users Welfare Association reported in (2018) 6 SCC 21, concluded, after examining the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, that the said provisions amply make it clear that no act or proceedings of CCI would be invalid because of any vacancy or defect in its Constitution. Learned counsel submits that as a result of the aforesaid observation, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cadd Systems (supra) concluded that notwithstanding that a judicial member is required to be appointed at CCI, the order passed by CCI cannot be called into question. Learned counsel relies upon Paras 26,38,39 of the judgment of learned Single Judge in Mylan Laboratories (supra) and fairly submits that the judgment in Mylan Laboratories (supra) was rendered in respect of Intellectual Properties Appellate Board Particularly Section 84(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, regarding the constitution of its bench. Learned counsel has also placed on record a compilation of judgments which have also been considered.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is aware that on merits, so far as the charges are concerned, the CCI had given a finding in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the same was never challenged by the petitioner by filing a statutory appeal thereagainst. He submits that having not challenged the said finding, now to challenge the same by way of the present writ petition or even the application under Section 42 of the Act would amount to the re-agitation of an issue which has been decided by the CCI. On that basis, the learned senior counsel submits that the observations and findings reached by the CCI are final and binding upon the petitioner. Thus, neither the application under Section 42 of the Act nor the present petition is maintainable either on facts or on the law.
Mr Sandeep Sethi learned senior counsel appears on behalf of respondents nos. 4 and 5 and vehemently opposes the submissions made by the petitioner. According to Mr Sethi, learned senior counsel, Section 8 of the Act decides the composition of the Commission. Referring to sub-Section 1 of Section 8 of the Act, Mr Sethi submits that by the usage of the word “shall”, the legislative intent is to ensure that the Commission would necessarily consist of a Chairperson and not less than two and not more than six other members makes it clear that the minimum quorum for the composition of a competent commission would be minimum of three Members, including the Chairperson.
Learned senior counsel also submits that having said that, the respondents have challenged the directions contained in the Final Order dated 25.10.2022 before the NCLAT. On an overall conspectus, Mr Sethi submits that the present petition is devoid of any merit, is an abuse of the process of law and ought to be dismissed in limine with exemplary cost.
JUDGEMENT
This Court has heard the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and considered the ratio laid down in various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the judgments delivered by the Division Bench of this Court as well as other High Courts.
Moreover, according to Mr N. Venkataraman, learned ASG, the CCI is constituted following the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 and is very much functional and also simultaneously carrying out adjudicatory functions. Because of the above, there is no impediment, legal or otherwise, in directing the CCI to take up the applications under Section 42 of the Act, as filed by the petitioner, for hearing and considering the same following law on or before 26.04.2023. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in the above terms. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only to the extent of deciding the present is before this Court and shall not tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case and the same is therefore, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties, to be taken at an appropriate proceeding.
Epiq, a global technology-enabled services leader to the legal industry and corporations, takes on large-scale, increasingly complex tasks for corporate counsel, law firms, and business professionals with efficiency, clarity, and confidence. Clients rely on Epiq to streamline the administration of legal department and business operations, class action and mass tort, eDiscovery, regulatory, compliance, restructuring, and bankruptcy matters.
Job Position
Legal Associate
Roles and Responsibilities
Review documents for relevancy, privilege and other issues as directed by our clients.
Assist with research on technical and industry-specific issues.
Qualifications
Proficiency with Microsoft Office tools (MS Word, MS Excel, MS PPT)
Familiar with the U.S. judicial system, understanding of legal fundamentals, methods, and procedures from the U.S. perspective
LLB (three- or five-year program),
LLM (optional) India or Abroad
Requirements
Good communication skills, both written and oral, and strong English reading comprehension
Decision making: Exercises good judgment and assumes responsibility
Be a Team Player, open to feedback, and contribute to building positive team spirit
Ethics: Treats people with respect, keeps commitments, and works with integrity.
Sound knowledge of the document review and e-discovery/litigation industry
Knowledge of litigation management software: Relativity, Xerox, and/or DocuMatrix
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
The world’s best businesses know that potential customers can be anywhere. TransPerfect helps our clients to be everywhere. With global headquarters in New York and offices in 104 cities across six continents, TransPerfect is the world’s largest provider of language services and related technologies.
Role Overview
The Junior Associate will be responsible for evaluating and interpreting electronic documents for relevancy and privilege with utmost care of quality on document review projects. This is 3-month contract employment with a possible performance-based extension to a permanent role.
Role Description
Performing first-line review for relevancy and privilege on document review projects for high-profile clients and complex cases
Ability to grasp complex subject matters
Ensure jobs are completed according to the client and industry standards, and that job specifications and deadlines are met
Identify Key documents, log them in review tool and communicate that to the Team Lead
Focus on accuracy and first-time right approach to avoid any rework.
Perform other special tasks or duties when required
Required Skills
Knowledge of MS Excel
Available to work overtime, including evenings and weekends as needed
Ability to work well under pressure and meet tight deadlines
Team player and helps in creating positive team environment.
Attention to detail and good analytic skills
Required Experience and Qualifications
Bachelors of Law (LL.B)
Understanding of eDiscovery and Document Review Projects
0-1 year of eDiscovery experience (Freshers are welcome to apply)
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
Applications for physical internships are now being accepted for May 2023.
About the Organization
Utkrishtha Law Offices is a full-service law firm offering its expertise in the domain of including but not limited to Banking Laws, Arbitration Laws, Insolvency & Bankruptcy Laws, Cable & Broadcasting Laws, Commercial Laws, Real Estate, Information Technology Laws, Startup Advisory, Consumer Protection Laws, Criminal Laws, Custom & Excise Laws.
Eligibility
Preferably 3rd year onwards (5-year degree) or 2nd year onwards (3-year degree).
Candidates looking for a long-term internship are also welcome.
Location
29, Ground floor, Kailash Hills, New Delhi
Timings
From Monday to Saturday, 10 AM to 6 PM.
Application Procedure
Interested candidates are requested to send their updated CVs and a writing sample to advashirvad.kr@gmail.com. Please use the subject line “Internship Application- (Your Name) May 2023” and CC contact@utkrishthalaw.com in your email.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
Chowdhury and Associates, having an office in Calcutta, is looking for a Junior Advocate.
Eligibility
Enrolled in West Bengal Bar Council or have cleared AIBE
1-2 years of post-qualification experience will be preferred. However, lack of experience can be ignored if the applicant shows practical knowledge on the subject and/or internships in connection to it.
A person who can join immediately.
A candidate having exposure to civil and commercial law and litigation related to it
Salary
Negotiable
Application Procedure
Interested people may send their CVs to arkaproy98@gmail.com with the subject “Application for Junior Advocate.”
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
To be known as the World’s Largest and Fastest Growing Democracy isn’t as easy as it seems to be on paper. The daily reports and the Analysis would present the Nation to be at the zenith of its Democratic Practices, but deep down, are some rooted issues which are highlighted quite scarcely
The halls of Parliament are often filled with heated debates, passionate arguments, and fiery rhetoric. However, amidst all the chaos, there is one thing that is essential for maintaining order and decorum – the power to suspend or dismiss a member.
The functioning of a parliament or legislative assembly is essential for any democracy. It is the place where representatives of people sit together to discuss and make laws for the welfare of the country. But what happens when the power to suspend or dismiss a member is abused? What happens when the disciplinary mechanism is used as a tool to suppress dissent or opposition? These questions have become increasingly relevant in recent times, as lawmakers around the world grapple with issues of free speech, political correctness, and political correctness gone wrong.
In such cases, the speaker or the presiding officer of the house has the power to take action against the errant members by suspending or dismissing them from the house. This article aims to discuss the difference between suspension and dismissal and their relevance in parliamentary proceedings.
The power to suspend or dismiss a member is derived from the rules and procedures of the house, as well as the Constitution in some cases. The presiding officer of the house, such as the Speaker in the UK or the Lok Sabha in India, is typically responsible for enforcing disciplinary actions.
Recently, in the Indian parliament, several opposition MPs were suspended for their unruly behaviour during the monsoon session. The speaker suspended them for the remaining period of the session, which led to a controversy over the extent of the speaker’s powers to suspend members. This incident once again highlighted the need to understand the difference between suspension and dismissal.
What is Suspension?
Suspension means to bar a member from attending the house proceedings for a specific period. The presiding officer of the house has the power to suspend a member if they violate the rules of the house or indulges in any disruptive behaviour. The power to suspend a member is derived from Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution[1], which grants each house of parliament the power to punish its members for contempt or disorderly conduct. The rules and procedures of the house further elaborate on the circumstances under which a member can be suspended.
According to Rule 373 of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business[2], a member can be suspended for any of the following reasons:
Continuous disregard for the authority of the Chair
Wilful obstruction of the business of the house
Use of unparliamentary language or making defamatory remarks
Display placards or shout slogans in the house
Physical attack or assault on another member or a member of the house staff
Similarly, Rule 256 of the Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business[3] provides for the suspension of a member for any of the following reasons:
Gross disorderly conduct
Wilful obstruction of the business of the house
Refusal to obey the Chair’s order
Use of unparliamentary language or making defamatory remarks
Display placards or shout slogans in the house
Once a member has been suspended, he or she is barred from attending any meetings of the house or any committee of which he or she may be a member. The member is also not allowed to enter the parliamentary premises during the period of suspension.
The period of suspension can vary depending on the severity of the offence and the discretion of the presiding officer of the house. In some cases, a member may be suspended for a few days or weeks, while in other cases, the suspension may last for the entire duration of the session.
It is important to note that a suspended member continues to be a member of the house, and his or her seat is not declared vacant. However, during the period of suspension, the member is not entitled to receive any salary or allowance from the parliament.
What is Dismissal?
In the Indian Parliament, dismissal refers to the expulsion of a member from the house. It is a severe disciplinary action that is taken when a member has committed a serious offence that is considered to be a breach of the privilege of the house.
The power to dismiss a member is derived from Article 105(3) of the Indian Constitution[4], which grants each house of parliament the power to expel its members for misconduct or breach of privilege. The rules and procedures of the house further elaborate on the circumstances under which a member can be dismissed.
According to Rule 374 of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business[5], a member can be dismissed for any of the following reasons:
Breach of the privileges of the house
Refusal to obey the Chair’s order
Wilful disregard of the authority of the Chair
Use of unparliamentary language or making defamatory remarks
Physical attack or assault on another member or a member of the house staff
Similarly, Rule 256 of the Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business[6] provides for the dismissal of a member for any of the following reasons:
Breach of the privileges of the house
Refusal to obey the Chair’s order
Wilful disregard of the authority of the Chair
Use of unparliamentary language or making defamatory remarks
Physical attack or assault on another member or a member of the house staff
Once a member has been dismissed, his or her seat is declared vacant, and a by-election is held to fill the vacancy. The member is also not eligible to contest any by-elections for the remainder of the term of the house. It is important to note that the power to dismiss a member is a discretionary power of the house, and is exercised only in the most extreme cases. The decision to dismiss a member is taken by a vote of the house and requires the support of a majority of the members present and voting.
Dismissal stands to be a severe disciplinary action that is used in the Indian Parliament to maintain discipline and uphold the privilege of the house. The power to dismiss a member is derived from the Constitution and the rules and procedures of the house and is exercised only in the most extreme cases. The decision to dismiss a member requires the support of a majority of the members present and voting, and the seat of the dismissed member is declared vacant.
Decoding the Differences between Suspension and Dismissal in the Indian Parliament
Suspension and dismissal are two different disciplinary actions that can be taken against a member of the Indian Parliament for breach of privilege or misconduct. While both actions involve the removal of a member from the house, there are significant differences between the two.
Meaning and duration: Suspension refers to the temporary removal of a member from the house for a specific period, while dismissal refers to the permanent expulsion of a member from the house.
Severity: Suspension is a less severe disciplinary action than dismissal. Suspension is used to maintain discipline and order in the house and to deter members from engaging in misconduct. Dismissal, on the other hand, is a more severe disciplinary action that is taken only in the most extreme cases of misconduct or breach of privilege.
Process: The process for suspension and dismissal is also different. In the case of suspension, the Speaker or the Chairman of the house can order the member to withdraw from the house for a specific period. The decision to suspend a member can also be taken by the house, based on a motion moved by another member. The decision to dismiss a member, on the other hand, can only be taken by the house, and requires the support of a majority of the members present and voting.
Duration of the process: The process of suspension is usually quicker than that of dismissal. In most cases, the decision to suspend a member is taken on the same day as the incident of misconduct or breach of privilege. The process of dismissal, on the other hand, is more time-consuming and requires a more detailed inquiry into the conduct of the member.
Consequences: The consequences of suspension and dismissal are also different. In the case of suspension, the member is not allowed to attend the house for a specific period but retains his or her membership in the house. In the case of dismissal, the member loses his or her membership in the house, and the seat is declared vacant. The dismissed member is also not eligible to contest any by-elections for the remainder of the term of the house.
Effect on the member’s reputation: Suspension and dismissal also have different implications for the reputation of the member. While suspension may be seen as a minor blemish on the member’s record, dismissal is a severe strain on the member’s reputation and can have serious consequences for his or her political career.
Precedence: Suspension is a more common disciplinary action than dismissal in the Indian Parliament. Dismissal is used only in the most extreme cases of misconduct or breach of privilege, while the suspension is used to maintain discipline and order in the house.
While both suspension and dismissal are disciplinary actions that can be taken against a member of the Indian Parliament, there are significant differences between the two. Suspension is a less severe disciplinary action than dismissal and is used to maintain discipline and order in the house. Dismissal is a more severe disciplinary action that is taken only in the most extreme cases of misconduct or breach of privilege. The process and consequences of suspension and dismissal are also different, and the implications for the reputation of the member are also different.
Their Similarities
Although suspension and dismissal differ in severity and the decision-making process, they share some similarities.
Both are disciplinary actions taken against members who violate the rules and regulations of the house.
Both can be used to maintain the decorum and dignity of the house.
Both affect the rights and privileges of the members concerned.
Legal Statutes Involving Suspension and Dismissal
The power to suspend a member is derived from the rules and procedures of the house. In India, the power to suspend a member of parliament is given to the speaker under Rule 374 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha[7]. Similarly, in the UK, the power to suspend a member of the House of Commons is given to the speaker under Standing Order No. 44[8]. The rules and procedures of the house also provide for the procedure of suspension, including the duration of the suspension and the appeal process.
The power to dismiss a member is derived from the constitution and the rules of the house. In India, Article 102 of the Constitution[9] provides for the grounds for disqualification of a member of parliament.
The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959[10], provides for some exemptions from disqualification, but the power to dismiss a member is subject to the Constitution. Similarly, in the UK, the power to dismiss a member of the House of Commons
There have been several legal judgments and case laws related to the power of suspension and dismissal in parliamentary proceedings. In 2019, the Supreme Court of India upheld the power of the speaker to suspend a member under Rule 374 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. The court also held that the decision of the speaker to suspend a member cannot be questioned in a court of law, as it falls within the scope of the internal proceedings of the house.
Similarly, in the UK, the House of Commons Standards Committee recommended the suspension of a member of parliament for seven days for using derogatory language towards a fellow member in 2020. The recommendation was accepted by the house, and the member was suspended for the said period.
Case Laws Pertaining to the Provisions of Suspension vs Dismissal in Parliament
Certainly! The power to suspend or dismiss a member of parliament is a crucial aspect of parliamentary proceedings, and several famous case laws have helped to define the scope and limitations of this power. Let us take a closer look at some of these case laws.
In this case, Subramanian Swamy, a member of the Rajya Sabha, was suspended for his alleged derogatory remarks against the Prime Minister of India. Swamy challenged his suspension in the Supreme Court, arguing that the power to suspend a member should not be used as a tool to stifle dissenting voices.
The Supreme Court, while upholding Swamy’s suspension, held that the power to suspend a member is an essential component of the disciplinary mechanism of the house. The court also observed that the power to suspend should be exercised judiciously and with caution, and should not be used as a tool to suppress dissent or opposition.
Michael Martin MP (2009)
In the UK, the Speaker of the House of Commons has the power to suspend a member for disorderly conduct. In 2009, Michael Martin, the Speaker at the time, suspended a member of parliament for calling him a “little Hitler.”
The member challenged his suspension, arguing that the Speaker had exceeded his authority. However, the courts upheld the Speaker’s power to suspend a member for disorderly conduct and rejected the member’s challenge
Jeremy Corbyn MP (2020)
In 2020, Jeremy Corbyn, a former leader of the UK Labour Party, was suspended from the party for his response to a report on anti-Semitism within the party. Corbyn had suggested that the issue had been overstated for political reasons. The suspension sparked a controversy, with some members of the party supporting Corbyn and others calling for his expulsion. Eventually, after an internal investigation, Corbyn’s suspension was lifted, and he was readmitted to the party.
This case highlights the importance of the disciplinary mechanisms within political parties and the need to balance the right to free speech with the need to maintain party discipline.
In this case, the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Indian parliament) suspended Vijay Kumar Malhotra, a member of parliament, for his alleged involvement in a corruption scandal. Malhotra challenged his suspension in the Delhi High Court, arguing that the power to suspend a member was arbitrary and violated his fundamental rights.
The Delhi High Court rejected Malhotra’s challenge, holding that the power to suspend a member was a necessary component of the disciplinary mechanism of the house. The court also observed that the power to suspend was subject to judicial review but only on limited grounds.
These case laws highlight the importance of the power to suspend or dismiss a member in maintaining discipline and decorum within parliamentary proceedings. However, it is equally important to ensure that the power is exercised judiciously and in accordance with the rules and procedures of the house.
Conclusion
In conclusion, suspension and dismissal are two disciplinary actions that are used in parliamentary proceedings to maintain decorum and discipline. Suspension is a temporary punishment, and the power to suspend a member is derived from the rules and procedures of the house. Dismissal is a permanent punishment, and the power to dismiss a member is derived from the Constitution and the rules of the House. Although the two punishments differ in severity and decision-making process, they share some similarities, and both affect the rights and privileges of the members concerned.
In the UK, for example, the power to suspend a member for disorderly conduct has been used to punish members for everything from shouting in the house to using derogatory language. In some cases, the punishment has been seen as excessive or arbitrary, leading to calls for reform of the disciplinary process.
Similarly, in India, the power to suspend a member has been used to punish members for everything from sleeping in the house to making controversial statements. Some have argued that the power to suspend is being used to stifle dissent and opposition, leading to concerns about the erosion of democratic values.
Of course, not all suspensions and dismissals are controversial or unjustified. In many cases, these disciplinary actions are necessary for maintaining order and decorum within parliamentary proceedings. But it is essential to ensure that the power is not being abused and that the rights and privileges of members are not being unduly curtailed.
In conclusion, the power to suspend or dismiss a member of parliament is a crucial aspect of parliamentary proceedings, but it is equally important to ensure that the power is being exercised judiciously and in accordance with the rules and procedures of the house. As lawmakers continue to grapple with issues of free speech, political correctness, and the role of the disciplinary mechanism in maintaining order and decorum, it is essential to strike a balance between discipline and democracy. Recent legal judgments and case laws have upheld the power of the presiding officer of the house to suspend a member and the power of the house as a whole to dismiss a member in appropriate cases. It is essential to maintain the decorum and dignity of the house, and the power to suspend or dismiss a member should be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the rules and procedures of the house.
Endnotes:
Constitution of India art. 105(2) (as amended by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978)
Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, Rule 373
Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, Rule 256
Constitution of India art. 105(3) (as amended by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978)
Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, Rule 374
Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, Rule 256
Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, Rule 374
Standing Orders of the House of Commons, Standing Order No. 44
Constitution of India art. 102
The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, Act No. 10 of 1959 (India)
Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2011) 6 SCC 617
Lok Sabha Secretariat v. Re Vijay Kumar Malhotra, [2006] Delhi High Court 269
This article is authored by Rishaan Gupta, a 1st year Student at National Law University, Delhi.
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab, was established by the State Legislature of Punjab by passing the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law Punjab Act, (Punjab Act No. 12 of 2006). The Act incorporated a University of Law of national stature in Punjab, thereby fulfilling the need for a Centre of Excellence in legal education in the modern era of globalization and liberalization.
About CBLT
The Centre for Business Laws and Taxation (CBLT) is a research Centre under the aegis of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. It aims to promote and conduct interdisciplinary research and undertake numerous activities and projects in the realm of Business Laws and Taxation.
The Centre for Business and Taxation Laws at RGNUL collaborates with industry experts, organizations, academics, and government bodies to bridge the gap between theory and practice in business law and taxation. It conducts research, provides a platform for discussion and discourse, and expands the scope of these fields through multidimensional activities.
About Call for Blogs
This blog seeks to foster intellectual discourse and research in business and taxation laws by publishing analytical pieces that drive significant developments in the discourse around corporate law. The focus is on practical outputs, and legal solutions, and creating awareness to ease the hurdles in today’s evolving business and regulatory landscape.
Who can Submit?
The Editorial Board welcomes submissions from
legal practitioners,
advisors,
academicians, and
law students
on various areas of business and commercial law, including mergers and acquisitions, competition, banking, and insurance, among others, as well as contemporary topics like data privacy, fintech law, and white-collar crimes.
Submission Guidelines
Use Garamond font, size 12, with a line spacing of 1.5. Maintain margins of 1.5 inches on the left and 1 inch on the right, with 1 inch on the top and bottom.
Citations should be hyperlinked within the document and the portion being referenced. The Board reserves the right to add additional links to sources relevant to the post. Submissions should be a minimum of 1000 words and must not exceed 1500 words.
Co-authorship is limited to a maximum of two authors.
The manuscript should not contain the name of the author(s), institutional affiliation, or any other identification mark.
The author(s) are responsible for the accuracy of facts, opinions, or views stated in the submitted manuscript
All manuscripts will be checked for plagiarism by the Editorial Board, and infringing, offensive, or plagiarized submissions will be rejected. A similarity index of 20% will be strictly adhered to for all submissions.
Submission Deadline
Submissions will be accepted continuously and without a specific deadline i.e. on a ROLLING BASIS.
Contact Details
Mail us at cblt@rgnul.ac.in or contact the undersigned.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
CE Legal is led by advocate Keval Shah. Keval has extensive knowledge of indirect taxes, particularly in GST and the erstwhile service tax. The firm handles litigation and assessment concerning direct and indirect taxes. The firm supports services in terms of preparation, filing, and liaising with the government department and appellate authorities on behalf of our clients. While running a business is important, planning its smooth sailing is integral to the core.
Their legal services cater to your present needs like drafting agreements while also keeping in mind the importance of your secure future with a will, succession, planning, and more. With a team of successful lawyers and accountants, they offer the best insight into the services that include business structuring for mergers and acquisitions, due diligence, and valuations of a company.
Responsibilities
Working on basic drafting of replies to departmental inquiries and show cause notice
Drafting appeals to the commissioner appeals and tribunal
Assisting senior lawyers
Researching case laws and precedents
Coordinating with clients
Working on departmental visits and following up with department officers
Managing other legal activities related to notices and orders
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
Deepak Sabharwal & Associates (DSA), is a full-service law firm providing legal services for the last 49 years having profound expertise in various fields of law. The firm is a mid-size legal firm operating through its offices in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Chennai, and Bangalore apart from having associates in almost all the major cities of India. They are having to represent clients in almost all the high courts and about 250 districts in the country. The firm has been providing specialist services since 1967 to a wide range of industries.
They have also been providing advisory services to our clients in various fields and regulatory approvals from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB), Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and other government authorities, etc. Deepak Sabharwal and Associates is noted for its commitment to client service and its ability to solve the most complex and demanding legal & business challenges worldwide in a very cost-effective manner.
Responsibilities
Assist senior advocates in their filing and drafting
Work on all courts in Delhi NCR and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Work on getting exposure to corporate clients and corporate work
Tenure
1 Month
Perks
Certificate
Letter of recommendation
Job offer
Additional Information
Job offer: On successful conversion to a permanent employee, the candidate can expect a salary of Rs. 2 to 3 Lac/annum
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
