Suspension motion unconstitutional, violative of fundamental rights: BJP MLAs Counsels to Delhi HC on their suspension

New Delhi [India], February 22 : The seven suspended BJP MLAs on Thursday argued that the motion for their suspension was unconstitutional and violative of their fundamental rights. They can't be punished twice for a single act of violation, counsels submitted in their concluding arguments.
Delhi High Court has asked the privileges committee of the Delhi assembly to hold off its proceedings against seven BJP MLAs.
The High Court said that since the matter is being heard on merit, the committee should not continue with the proceedings.
The Court adjourned the matter till Friday for hearing further arguments on behalf of the Speaker of Delhi Legislative Assembly.
Justice Subramonium Prasad heard the arguments of senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, Kirti Uppal and Pavan Narang for nearly three hours.
It was submitted that the motion for suspension of MLAs was unconstitutional and violative of their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
The senior advocates submitted that they were punished for their alleged misconduct by marshalling out by the Speaker. Then how can a motion be passed in this regard?
How can they be punished twice for a single act of violation, argued the counsel.
It was further argued that in passing the motion the procedures were not followed as it had mentioned MLAs against whom it was passed. The matter was also referred to the privilege committee.
Secondly, the MLAs have been suspended till the disposal of the matter by the privilege committee. This is an indefinite period. The suspension can not be for an indefinite period.
The Counsels further argued that MLAs represent a constituency and cannot be left unrepresented for an indefinite period.
It was also argued that the MLAs' right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India has also been violated. They are representative of people in their constituency and therefore the right of the people is also violated.
After the conclusion of the petitioners' arguments, counsel for the Delhi Legislative Assembly Speaker began his arguments.
At the outset, it was submitted that the MLAs met the Speaker yesterday. The matter has been referred to the Privileged Committee.
On Wednesday senior counsel Jayant Mehta informed the court that they wrote a letter to LG who has accepted their apology. They have also sent a copy of the letter to the Speaker.
It was submitted by the senior advocate Kirti Uppal that they are ready to meet the speaker, the counsels submitted. Emails have been sent to the speaker as they are not permitted in Vidhan Sabha
During the hearing, the counsels had also submitted that there were some political comments made on the issue like What you did with Rajya Sabha members of AAP.
This matter is being compared to that of Raaghav Chaddha to give it a political colour.
It should not be done while the matter is before the court of law, the counsel had submitted.
Senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog appeared for the Delhi Legislative Assembly and argued that the MLAs should go to the Speaker with a letter of apology.
At that point, the court clarified that it was not interesting to go into the nature of the meeting and what was going to transpire there.
Justice Subramonium Prasad had said to meet the Speaker. The court will hear the matter if it is not sorted out.
On Tuesday the High Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of seven suspended BJP MLAs till tomorrow after the court was informed that there are some more developments.
In the morning, a counsel for the Delhi Assembly Speaker appeared and said that the controversy could be put to rest if the MLAs meet and apologise to the Speaker.
Thereafter, the Delhi High Court asked the counsel for the MLAs to take instructions.
On Monday, It was argued that an MLA can not be suspended for an indefinite time.
These seven MLAs have been suspended for allegedly disturbing the Delhi Assembly on February 15 during an address of Lt Governor.
Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, and advocates Neeraj, Satya Ranjan Swain appeared for the petitioner MLAs including Vijender Gupta, Ajay Kumar Mahavar, Abhay Verma, Anil Kumar Vajpayee, OP Sharma and two others.
Senior advocate Jayant Mehta had submitted these seven out of eight MLSs have been suspended for an indefinite undefined period for representing the true factual position before the LG during his address on February 15, 2024.
He had also submitted that a motion for suspension of seven BJP MLs was passed with the voice vote for an indefinite period on February 16, 2024.
The court asked to show how the rules were violated and whether a petition can be heard when a privilege committee is hearing the matter.
Senior advocate Mehta submitted that the Supreme Court has already said that you can not suspend for an indefinite period.
There is a graded punishment that has to be followed. The privilege committee is hearing the matter and the Punishment has been given, he added.
The maximum punishment can be given for three days in the first incident. This is the first punishment, Mehta submitted.
Senior advocate Jayant Mehta submitted that it is Punishment if I am not allowed to participate being an MLA.
Justice Subramonium Prasad had asked what you want as interim relief.

Senior advocate said that we want permission to attend the session as it is a budget session.
Thereafter, the High Court listed the matter tomorrow to hear arguments on interim relief.
The motion for suspension of BJP MLAs was introduced by AAP MLA Dilip Pandey which passed by a voice vote.
It was submitted on behalf of MLA Ajay Kumar MAhavar that the LG was addressing the House on February 15. Certain assertions were made in the speech of LG which were factually. It was objected to. My objection was factual and to ensure the sanctity of the house is maintained. Despite this, seven out of eight MLAs were marshalled out, senior advocate Mehta submitted.
Interestingly, some of the MLAs of the ruling party were also disturbing the house, he added.
It was also submitted that they were allowed to attend the post-lunch session. Out of nowhere and contrary to the rules, a motion was moved by a member of the ruling party and it was passed by a voice vote.
Justice Prasad had said that When you are marshalled out, according to you that complies with Rule 44. Your principal argument is that you are now being punished twice for the same argument. Let's assume a person is so disorderly that once you have been marshalled out does it take away the right of the privileges committee to examine if a stricter punishment is needed to be imposed?
The bench also said that there is a limitation to interference with the affairs of the house.
Delhi BJP MLAs, who were suspended for the remainder of the Budget session of the Delhi Assembly, have moved to the Delhi High Court and challenged the decision of their suspension.
The matter was mentioned before the bench of acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora which allowed it for listing of the matter.
Senior advocate Jayant Mehta mentioned the matter before the bench on behalf of the BJP MLAs. It was submitted that the suspension of opposition MLAs is completely wrong and their right to participate in the proceedings is being affected.
Mehta during mentioning also submitted that the motion to suspend the MLAs is unconstitutional and contrary to the rules.
The budget session of the Delhi assembly began on February 15, 2024 with the LG outlining the policies, programmes and work of the AAP-led Delhi government in the fields of education, health, transport, social welfare, infrastructure, etc.
It was alleged that as LG Saxena began his speech mentioning AAP's achievements, BJP MLA and former leader of opposition Vijender Gupta interrupted. Later other BJP MLAs also continued interrupting LG's speech while he highlighted various achievements of the government.
On Friday, after the decision to suspend the BJP MLAs from the Delhi legislative assembly, Delhi Minister and AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj said, "A few days back in the upper house of the Parliament, Rajya Sabha, it was seen that a few members were suspended for the time till the report of privilege committee came... These small houses (state assemblies) take inspiration from the biggest house (parliament)... Interrupting LG address was a big issue and according to the code of conduct, it is to be seen as contempt of the house..."