INLD Has Just One Member In Haryana Assembly, But He Is At The Centre Of An Institutional Tussle In State

On 22 February, Abhay Singh Chautala, the sole INLD MLA in Haryana Assembly, moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking setting aside of the Speaker’s order to name and remove him from the house for two days for ‘disorderly conduct’. 

The Speaker had on 21 February removed Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) MLA Chautala after he entered into an argument over the deferral of a calling attention motion. 

‘Naming’ as per parliamentary procedure allows the Speaker to temporarily remove a member of the house if he violates the code of conduct of the assembly. 

Chautala pleaded before the High Court that the Speaker’s action was in violation of the Rules of Conduct of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. He maintained that the Speaker violated Rule 104-B of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. 

It states that in case a member has to be named, the Speaker shall put the question to the house that the member be suspended from service of the house for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session. 

The Speaker, according to this report, however was of the view that putting the question before the house was not necessary. 

The High Court then issued notice to the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat seeking their response on the matter. However, on the 17 of March, the Haryana Assembly passed a resolution to ignore the High Court notice. 

The assembly termed the notice as an interference in the functioning of the state legislature. 

While moving the resolution, Haryana Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kanwar Pal said, “On 21 February, Abhay Singh Chautala interrupted the House’s proceedings and violated rules of proceedings by indulging in disrespectful behaviour.”

He added that Chautala approached the High Court challenging the order, after which a notice was given to the Vidhan Sabha, which was not according to Article 212 of the Constitution. 

He said that there are several judgements of the Supreme Court which clearly state that courts cannot inquire into the proceedings of the state legislature. 

He said, “thus I propose that the notice issued by the High Court should not be accepted because it is an interference in the functioning of the state legislature. Thus, this notice should be ignored and a reply should not be submitted.”

Chautala, however maintained that the Speaker can only suspend members for one sitting and if he has to suspend for longer duration, then a motion has to be brought in the house, which was not done in this case. 

The Speaker read out several judgements of the Supreme Court on the issue of interference by the courts and cited an eight judge bench decision of the Supreme Court — wherein it has been held that the validity of the proceedings inside the legislature of a state cannot be called into question on the allegation that the procedure laid down has not been strictly followed.

The Speaker was on point to refer to Keshav Singh v. UP Assembly Speaker, wherein the Supreme Court clearing laid down that Article 212 (1) of the Constitution provides that the validity of any proceedings in the legislature of a state shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.

The Supreme Court further held that Article 212 (2) confers immunity on the officers and members of the legislature in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in the legislature, from being subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.

The matter has been posted by the High Court for further hearing on 23 March.