Tag: parliament

S.no	Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	What is Suspension?
3.	What is Dismissal?
4.	Decoding the Differences between Suspension and Dismissal in the Indian Parliament
5.	Legal Statutes Involving Suspension and Dismissal
6.	Case Laws
7.	Conclusion

Introduction

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.

Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2011)^[11]

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.

Lok Sabha v. Re. Vijay Kumar Malhotra (2006)^[12]

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:

1. Constitution of India art. 105(2) (as amended by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978)
2. Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, Rule 373
3. Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, Rule 256
4. Constitution of India art. 105(3) (as amended by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978)
5. Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, Rule 374
6. Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, Rule 256
7. Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, Rule 374
8. Standing Orders of the House of Commons, Standing Order No. 44
9. Constitution of India art. 102
10. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, Act No. 10 of 1959 (India)
11. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2011) 6 SCC 617
12. 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.

INTRODUCTION

On August 2, the Parliament passed the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019. On August 8th, 2019, it was quickly approved by the President. The Amendment Act, which was passed by Parliament, resulted in a number of revisions to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967. The primary modification was done to Section 35 of the Act. The most recent change to the law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 (UAPA 2019), allows the Union Government to label individuals as terrorists without following due process. The UAPA is also referred to as the Anti-Terrorism Act. This amendment has received much criticism as it allowed the government to classify individuals as terrorists if the government suspects they are engaging in terrorism. When a person is so classified, their name is included in Schedule 4 of the statute. Prior to the amendment, only organizations could be classified as terrorist organizations. The current challenge to the 2019 Amendment Act is merely in its earliest stages, with the State yet to file its response. Nonetheless, due to the nature of the challenge and previous complaints of the legislation as excessive, the situation is poised to provide an excellent testing ground for the scope of the government’s discretion in anti-terror legislation.

The amendment resulted in sections 35 and 36 of Chapter VI of the Act being broadened – the term “terrorist” to include individuals. It also empowers the DG of the NIA to seize property derived from terrorist funds under Section 25 and personnel with the level of inspector and higher to investigate crimes under Section 43 of the UAPA. The Central Government also establishes a Review Committee to denote the individual who has been designated as a terrorist, effectively eliminating any institutional avenue for judicial review.

CHALLENGES TO THE AMENDMENT

The principal objections to the Amendment are based on Section 35, which, in addition to categorizing organizations as terrorist organizations, expanded the power to encompass the designation of individuals as terrorists. Two petitions were filed before the supreme court regarding the constitutional validity – Sajal Awasthi filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court against the UAPA, 2019, claiming that it is unconstitutional since it infringes basic fundamental rights. Another petition, filed by the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), argued that the new Section 35 enables the Centre to classify an individual as a terrorist and include his individuality in Schedule 4 of the Act, whereas previously only organizations could be designated as terrorist organizations. The fundamental point of disagreement for both petitioners is that an individual can be classified as a terrorist with no judicial assessment and even before a lawsuit is filed, which is unreasonable. They claimed that the Amendment Act violated the rights to life (Article 21), free speech (Article 19), and equality guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 14). Opposers of the Amendment contend that it provides the executive arbitrary authority and infringes an individual’s right to due process, right to protest, and right to dignity. The Court marked these petitions, and on September 7, 2019, it sent notice to the Government. Sections 35 and 36, according to the petitioners, should be repealed and declared illegal. Based on the Awasthi lawsuit, the provision’s absence of defined standards for labelling someone a terrorist violates their right to equality. As a result, the clause is manifestly arbitrary. A law is clearly capricious and inconsistent with equality right if it is established without a proper guiding foundation and is exorbitant or disproportionate in character, according to the concept of obvious arbitrariness. Awasthi further claims that the amendment infringes the right to dissent, which is a component of free speech. They highlighted the judgements in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) and Maqbool Fida Hussain v. Rajkumar Pandey (1950) to emphasize the importance of free expression and the accompanying freedom to disagree (2008). The grounds for the petition are as follows:

1. There is an absence of substantive and procedural fair trials – There is an absence of substantive and procedural fair trials. section 35 authorizes the government to label any individual as a terrorist under the Fourth Schedule of the UAPA. Without an elaborate process, the administration can proclaim and inform based on mere belief. There is no requirement for a fair hearing. The basis for declaring someone a terrorist is imprecise and ambiguous: would it be the filing of an FIR or a trial court conviction? While S. 36 allows an individual who has been designated as a terrorist to file an appeal with the government, its implementation is problematic. A person is not notified of the reason for his or her arrest. At the level of appeal, there isn’t any provision for an oral hearing. In the case of Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), it was reaffirmed that only through due process of law could the right to life and personal liberty be restricted. Sections 35 and 36 violate the due process requirement.
2. The law is irrational and infringes on equality – The challenging part lacks safeguards against the considerable potential for discretionary power. While the method for designating an organization as a terrorist is robust, it is inappropriate for an individual. The handling of a person is disproportionate and inappropriate because there is no clear aim underlying the differentiation between an organization and an individual. This does not meet Article 14’s ‘reasonable classification’ criteria. Furthermore, the denial of a fair hearing violated the natural justice concept of audi alteram partem, or the fair hearing rule. Invoking the case of Union of India v Tulsiram Patel (1985), the petition claims that a violation of natural justice leads to arbitrariness and thus violates Article 14. The petition also mentioned People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2004). The Court concluded that violating human rights in the fight against terrorism is counterproductive.
3. Indirect Infringement to Free Speech – According to Maqbool Fida Hussain v. Rajkumar Pandey, dissent is an essential component of the right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a) (2008). Under the pretence of banning terrorism, the challenged Sections are intended to restrict critical expression against the government. The change contradicts the international conventions approved by India. The Amendment specifically violates legal norms under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Counterterrorism.

CONCLUSION

The Amendment was already widely criticized since it gives the Union Government vast and indefinite authority to arrest anyone without following necessary procedures. The UAPA amendment empowers the government to violate a person’s basic rights to free speech, integrity, dissent, and reputation. The burden of evidence to counter the charges is on the individual, not just the state, and anyone can be branded a terrorist at the discretion of the government. Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution are violated by the 2019 Act changes, and the legislature has no jurisdiction to take away a citizen’s fundamental rights because they are a fundamental component of the Constitution. Certain provisions of the recently amended UAPA, 2019, are irreconcilable with the legal structure of the country. To fight terrorism, this Act empowers the government to impose unofficial limitations on the right to free expression; yet these measures have unintended implications that limit the circulation of ideas within society. As a consequence of this law, countless journalists are placed on trial and required to withdraw their opinions on certain sensitive topics merely because the government considers that doing so will incite hatred, without giving any proof to support this claim. The most serious consequences can be witnessed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. After Article 370 was repealed, the government gained control over the state. Many residents, especially reporters, are being tried under UAPA and are being denied the right to free expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Amendment contradicts the mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The preceding arguments have demonstrated how the amendment jeopardizes its citizens’ fundamental rights and threatens the very existence of opposition. When such heinous legislation breaches and deprives citizens’ rights, it is the Supreme Court’s responsibility to intervene and re-establish faith in democracy. This Amendment shows the goal of laws enacted by colonial rule to stifle various liberation movements under the guise of maintaining public order.

CITATIONS

1. K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).
2. Union Of India and Another vs Tulsiram Patel and Others, 1985 AIR 1416 (India).

---

This article is written by Shraddha Vemula, a second-year B.B.A. LLB Student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

PCGT is organizing NATIONAL YOUTH PARLIAMENT 2022 on JULY 30 AND 31, 2022.

ABOUT

PCGT came into existence in the year 2002 when good and straightforward officers were being humiliated by the political leadership. Two of our future trustees, Dr. R. K. Anand and Mr. Dara Gandhy, filed a PIL against the proposed transfer of an upright I.P.S. officer. They succeeded in the Bombay High Court.

The idea of taking up cudgels on behalf of good and honest officers and targeting corruption as the main cause for the choices of the politicians was born.

ELIGIBILITY

All law students and policymakers.

DATES

30 & 31 July 2022

VENUE

Pravin Gandhi College of Law: 

8th Floor, Mithibai College Campus, Bhakti Vedanta Swami Marg, Vile Parle West, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400056

CONTACT US

BIANCA CHETTIAR (PRESIDENT) : +91 96195 78431

RACHNA VERMA (VICE PRESIDENT) : +91 82260 82269

https://www.pcgtnyp.org/register

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.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

The Supreme Court recently announced its verdict on the Central Vista case. It was a transferred case from the Delhi High Court. The case dealt with several petitions filed against the Central Vista Project initiated by the Central Government. The petitioners including Rajeev Suri had opposed this project as it involved the change in land use of the lush green area surrounding the Rashtrapati Bhawan and the Vijay Chowk.

The central government and the Delhi Development Authority are given the power to modify the Master Plan of Delhi that was notified in 2007 to guide the direction of development of the National Capital Territory until 2021. This was modified in March 2020 to include the Central Vista project. Sections of land are assigned for specific purposes such as recreation, government, public and semi-public, which were modified to accommodate the Central Vista project. The petitioners argued that change in land use was not really a “modification” and also raised concerns on the manner in which the permissions were granted.

The Centre had intended to build a new parliament building and build spaces to accommodate the ministries that have been currently located at several different places. The project which is to be built at the 3- kilometre from the Rashtrapati Bhawan stretch was announced earlier in September 2019 and was to be constructed completely by 2022 August. It is going to be a triangular building with the Central Secretariat which will be completed by 2024. A Gujarat based architectural consultancy firm named HCP designs had won the bid for consultancy for the redevelopment project.

The judgment saw a split of 2:1 with Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari delivered their majority opinion with Justice Sanjeev Khanna dissenting with the judgment. The delivered majority judgment comprised of 432 pages out of which 100 pages dealt with the questions of rule of law, judicial review power of executive with respect to the Central Vista Case.

For the complete case analysis, visit – http://lexpeeps.in/rajeev-suri-v-delhi-development-authority-ors/

Title of the case: Rajeev Suri v Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Respondent: Delhi Development Authority and Union of India

Petitioner: Rajeev Suri

Equivalent Citation:  MANU/SC/0001/2021

Date of Judgement: 5.01.2021

Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Brief Facts:

The Supreme Court recently announced its verdict on the Central Vista case in the Centre’s favor on 5th January 2021. It was a transferred case from the Delhi High Court. The case dealt with several petitions filed against the Central Vista Project initiated by the Central Government. The petitioners including Rajeev Suri had opposed this project as it involved the change in land use of the lush green area surrounding the Rashtrapati Bhawan and the Vijay Chowk.

The central government and the Delhi Development Authority are given the power to modify the Master Plan of Delhi that was notified in 2007 to guide the direction of development of the National Capital Territory until 2021. This was modified in March 2020 to include the Central Vista project. Sections of land are assigned for specific purposes such as recreation, government, public and semi-public, which were modified to accommodate the Central Vista project. The petitioners argued that change in land use was not really a “modification” and also raised concerns on the manner in which the permissions were granted.

The Centre had intended to build a new parliament building and build spaces to accommodate the ministries that have been currently located at several different places. The project which is to be built at the 3- kilometre from the Rashtrapati Bhawan stretch was announced earlier in September 2019 and was to be constructed completely by 2022 August. It is going to be a triangular building with the Central Secretariat which will be completed by 2024.

A Gujarat based architectural consultancy firm named HCP designs had won the bid for consultancy for the redevelopment project.

On a prior hearing, the court had given permission to the Central Government to go ahead and lay the foundation stone for the project when the latter ensured that no construction work is going to take place there.

Also, the division bench of the Delhi Court on 28^th February had stayed an order of its single judge bench requiring the DDA to inform it before making any changes to the master plan.

The petitions heard by the apex court were majorly on the following issues:

1. The legitimacy of the permissions given to the project inclusive of the change of land use.
2. The validity of the grant of a no- objection certificate by the Central Vista Committee and the clearances of environmental protection for building a new structure there. (this was a major concern as it allegedly violates the right to life under article 21 for preventing people to access the green areas)
3. The order issued by the Delhi High Court regarding the DDA not informing before making changes to the master plan for allowing the project.

The Judgment

The judgment saw a split of 2:1 with Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari delivered their majority opinion with Justice Sanjeev Khanna dissenting with the judgment. The delivered majority judgment comprised of 432 pages out of which 100 pages dealt with the questions of rule of law, judicial review power of executive with respect to the Central Vista Case.

The Court had adjudicated on the question of Rule of law along with Judicial Review and had held that a thin line of distinction must be drawn between the action of the executive and its impact on the individual’s action and the action of the executive which is comprised of administrative functions with no effect on liberty of an individual.

The court further went on to say that the petitioner had failed to show a case of an alleged deprivation of life and personal liberty of an individual. In order to establish their case before the Hon’ble Court, a cause- effect relationship had to be proved. Further, the court viewing the statutory processes is going to be unethical with the procedure established by law.

On the question of heightened judicial review, the court held that it won’t be justified on its part to exercise its power of judicial review on a matter where already a decision has been taken by the executive. It held that a publicly elected government is entitled to create errors as long as the constitutional principles are not violated. The court also adjudicated upon the question of participatory democracy and public participation. It held that a fine balance exists in our constitution between public participation and effective functioning of administration. Also, public participation is for inviting constructive suggestions from all the parties likely to be affected.

Moreover, on the question of change in land use, the court held that it was it was legal I nature as section 11A(2) of the DDA bestows the power with the Central Government to change the framework of the master plan for the development of the city in Public interest. The court finally concluded by saying that they are acknowledged as the repositories of public trust and faith but they cannot compel the government to function in a particular way without any legal basis.

The Dissent

Another important aspect of this case was the dissent shown by Justice Sanjeev Khanna. Although, in his judgment of 179 pages he mentioned that he agreed on the conclusions of the notice inviting bid, award of consultancy and the Urban Arts Commission’s order with the majority judgment announced by Justice AM Khanwilkar, he expressed his dissent on 7 major issues. They were respectively:

1. The invalidity of environmental clearances
2. The premeditated nature of the permission granted by the Central Vista Committee
3. The notice of development plan was not adequate
4. The project proposed the complete redevelopment of the Central Vista
5. The Central Govt. failed to take suggestions from the public
6. The public didn’t have adequate time at its disposal
7. There was no approval taken from the Heritage Conservation Committee

Analysis by – Tanuj Sharma

The Parliament put an end to all the speculations as it announced that there will be no Winter session for the Parliament due to the outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic. All political parties have favoured the scrapping down of the session in order to curb Covid spread and would straight away be jumping to the Budget session that takes place in January as per the information received by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi. 

The news was confirmed through the means of a letter on Monday which was in response to Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chaudhary’s demand for a session so that the new farm laws could be discussed owing to its controversial nature as the massive farmer protests have taken over the highways near Delhi. Stress was laid on the need to amend these laws that have been forced through Parliament by the government. 

The justification provided in the letter for not holding the Winter session of the Parliament was said to be in support of the cases of coronavirus which have seen an increase in the winter months and therefore it was crucial to take steps in order to manage the pandemic.

“It would be appropriate to have the Budget Session, 2021 in January, keeping in mind the unprecedented circumstances created by COVID-19 pandemic (sic),” the letter said.

It was decided that since it was the middle of December and the vaccine is supposedly going to come very soon thus all the floor leaders of various political parties were expressing concerns over the increase of the pandemic and they were of the consensus that the Parliament should do away with the Pandemic. 

However, since the Parliament will be now meeting for its Budget session in 2021 which is expected to be held in the last week of January before the budget is announced on the first of February. 

The decision to scrap down the winter session also came forth after the Monsoon Session had to be cut down because many members of Parliament had contracted the Coronavirus disease. Since a large figure of the parliamentarians is elderly it naturally made them more prone to the coronavirus and this is also one of the reasons that had to be considered.

Was The Congress not consulted in making the decision? 

Though the Parliamentary Affairs Minister made it clear through a letter to the Congress that all political parties were in favour of not holding a winter session in order to avoid further Covid spread and would directly beholding the budget session in January however Congress has said that it was never consulted in the first place

Does the scrapping down of the Winter Session have anything to do with the controversial farm laws? 

The monsoon session was held in September after a long delay yet was considered to be one of the most productive sessions as there were 27 bills that were passed in the continuous sittings that were held by the parliament. 3 farm laws which have sparked the current protests were also passed during this session and though the justification given by Parliament for scrapping down the winter session was to curb the spread of the virus however in the opinion of Congress’s Lok Sabha leader Mr Chaudhary the letter addressed to him was actually a way of the government to get away with the mess that has been caused because of the current farmer protests.

Another senior Congress leader Mr Ramesh also tweeted that the government was actually “departing from the truth” and the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Congress Member Ghulam Nabi Azad had actually not been consulted before taking the decision of scrapping down the winter session this year.

Several Congress leaders have demanded that a session be held in the Parliament with necessary precautions at the earliest because they were various concerning issues involving the country that needed to be discussed with included the economy, the situation with China as well as the farmer protests.

Since 17 members of the Lok Sabha and 8 members of the Rajya Sabha had tested positive before the session started and many other members of Parliament who had tested negative initially later contracted the virus during the monsoon session is the reason why the Parliament was of the opinion that it was best to do away with the winter session for this year.

Not being able to hold the winter session owing to the pandemic situation in a time when there is a lot happening in the country that needs to be discussed and addressed can definitely be termed as a crisis that the country is dealing with due to the Covid-19.

Report By- Alifya

Loved It? Join Our Groups to Stay Updated !!!

To join as Our Legal Journalist or for Query/ Compliment/ Criticism write us – Newsstories.lexpeeps@gmail.com