ASISH SHELAR AND ORS V.

THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AND ANR.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Advocates:
Petitioners advocate: Mr. Harish Salve (Sr. Advocate), Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari
(Advocate), Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh (Advocate-on-record), Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar (Sr.
Advocate), Mr. Utsav Trivedi (Advocate), Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani (Sr. Advocate)
Respondents: Mr. Dushyant Dave (Advocate), Mr. Sachin Patil (Advocate)
Facts:
1. The petitioners, including Ashish Shelar, were elected as members of the Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly from 2019 to 2024. They were a part of the Bhartiya Janata
Party (BJP), which is the main opposing party in the Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly.
2. During the Monsoon Session of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on July 5,
2021, a controversy arose. The petitioners, who were likely members of the
opposition party, claimed that the assembly’s proceedings were being managed in a
one-sided way. They believed there was a deliberate attempt to silence the opposition
party’s voice.
3. The assembly was led by a chairman, appointed under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly Rules. The petitioners argued that this chairman did not allow
the opposition party, including its Leader, to express their views. This was the main
point of contention in the case.
4. Before the actual Assembly session, there was a meeting of the Business Advisory
Committee. In this meeting, it was claimed that the members of the ruling party were
trying to shorten the assembly session by two days. This was particularly concerning
because the state was dealing with a unique crisis due to the pandemic. This was the
main issue raised in the allegations.
5. On July 5th, 2021, a proposal was put forward in the Maharashtra Assembly. It aimed
to get detailed information about other backward classes (OBC) for using it in
political reservations during local elections. Bhaskar Jadhav from the Shiv Sena, who
was overseeing the session as the speaker, permitted the proposal to be discussed.
6. Before the proposal could be presented, some members of the BJP tried to grab the
microphone and the Speaker’s mace. The speaker, Bhaskar Jadhav, who was
overseeing the session, temporarily stopped the proceedings. After that pause, a group
of BJP members allegedly used disrespectful language, made threats, and physically
confronted the speaker inside the Deputy speaker’s chambers.
7. The parliamentary affairs minister, Anil Parab from the Shiv Sena, proposed a
resolution to suspend 12 members, restricting them from participating in the
Legislature for one year. A majority of the members in the house approved this
resolution.
8. On July 22nd, 2021, the 12 MLAs Contested their suspension in the Supreme Court,
claiming that the speaker had arbitrarily used his quasi-judicial authority. They argued
that they were not provided with an opportunity to express their views before the
 suspension, which, according to them, disregarded the principles of natural justice and
infringed upon their right to freedom of speech.
Issues:
Factual Issues:
1. The individuals filing the petition claimed that the proceedings in the House were
being carried out in a one-sided way, deliberately designed to stifle the voice of the
opposition party.
2. It was claimed that during the meeting of the business advisory committee before the
assembly session, members of the ruling party made a deliberate effort to curtail the
session by two days
3. A set of MLAs from the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) tried to disrupt the proceedings
by grabbing the microphone and the speaker’s mace. The speaker temporarily halted
the session, after which a faction of BJP MLAs allegedly verbally abused, threatened,
and physically confronted him inside the deputy speaker’s chambers.
4. The parliamentary affairs minister proposed a resolution to suspend 12 members for
one year and limit their access to the legislature.
Legal issues:
1. Whether the speaker violated the principles of natural justice by not giving the MLAs
a chance to be heard.
2. Whether the legislative resolution suspending the MLAs for a year was excessive
3. Whether the suspension violates the MLA's freedom of speech and expression
4. Whether the impugned resolution was passed in undue haste and was politically
motivated.
5. Whether suspending the petitioners for one year is grossly unconstitutional and
illegal.
Laws Involved:
1. Article 208 of the Constitution of India 1949: this article deals with the rules of
procedure in the state legislature.
2. The Representation of the People Act, 1950: this act provides for the conduct of
elections to the houses of parliament and the house or houses of the legislature of each
state
3. Article 190 (4) of the constitution of India 1949: this article pertains to the vacation of
seats and disqualification from membership of the state legislature
4. Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1949: this article guarantees the right to life and
personal liberty.
5. Article 212 (1) of the Constitution of India 1949: this article relates to the courts not
inquiring into the proceedings of the legislature
6. Article 194 of the Constitution of India 1949: this article provides for the powers,
privileges, etc., of the houses of legislatures and of the members and committees
thereof.
Petitioners’ arguments:
1. The petitioners argued that the impugned resolution was passed in undue haste and
was politically motivated.
2. They argued that suspending the petitioners for one year is grossly unconstitutional
and illegal.
3. They argued that the speaker had exercised his quasi-judicial power arbitrarily.
4. They argued that they were not given a chance to be heard before being suspended,
which ignored the principles of natural justice and violated their right to free speech.
5. They argued that the resolution violated Rule 53 of the Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly rules, 2015 (the rules). Rule 53 allows the speaker to direct any member to
withdraw from the remainder of the session on the grounds of grossly disorderly
conduct. This rule does not allow for one-year suspensions.
Respondent's Arguments:
1. The state of Maharashtra argued that the Rules would not apply in this situation as the
suspension was done through a parliamentary resolution, not in the exercise of the
speaker’s Rule 53 powers.
2. They argued that the Speaker-in-chair had the authority to maintain the decorum of
the house
3. They contended that the suspension was necessary to maintain order in the house
4. They also argued that the MLAs’ conduct was grossly disorderly, which justified their
suspension.
Judgement:
the case of “Ashish Shelar & Ors. V. the Maharashtra legislative Assembly & Anr.” Was
heard by the supreme court of India on January 28, 2022. The Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly’s resolution to suspend the MLAs for a year was ruled by the court to be unlawful,
irrational, and unconstitutional. The court noted that the Assembly’s ability to suspend
members is a “self-security” measure meant to keep the house in order. In addition, the court
pointed out that since the MLAs were not allowed to be heard before being suspended, the
suspension went against the fundamental justice principles. As a result, the court invalidated
the resolution.
NOTE: THE JUDGEMENT, IN THIS CASE, IS A UNANIMOUS DECISION BY THE
BENCH.
The legal impact of this case:
1. Clarification on suspension powers: The Supreme Court provided clarification on the
authority to suspend members, stating that it is a power exercised for the self-security
of the legislative body to uphold order. This implies that such power should be
employed judiciously and only when essential to preserve decorum and discipline
within the house.
2. Upholding principles of natural justice: it emphasized that members should have an
opportunity to express their views and defend themselves before any suspension is
imposed
 3. Limits on suspension duration: the suspension of MLAs should be confined to the
duration of the current legislative session. This decision establishes a precedent for
handling future cases related to the suspension of members of the legislative assembly
(MLAs).
4. Unconstitutionality of excessive suspension: suspensions lasting for one year were
deemed illegal, unreasonable, and unconstitutional. This decision may serve as a
deterrent against similar actions in the future, setting a precedent for the appropriate
limits on suspension durations.
5. Impact on Future Legislative Actions: the court’s decision is likely to have a
significant impact on future legislative actions, serving as a precedent for the
appropriate exercise of the power to suspend members. It could influence the conduct
of legislative assemblies, especially concerning the maintenance of decorum and
order within the house. This judgment may guide lawmakers in ensuring that such
powers are exercised judiciously and under the principles of natural justice.
The social impact of the case:
1. Upholding democratic principles: the court emphasizes the vital role of opposition in
a democratic system. It conveyed a clear message that the voice of the opposition
cannot be stifled, thereby reinforcing democratic processes and the importance of
robust debate and dissent with legislative bodies.
2. Promoting accountability: the court’s decision contributed to promoting accountability
within the legislative assembly by holding it responsible for its actions. This emphasis
on transparency and accountability enhances the overall functioning of the legislative
bodies. It emphasizes the need for adherence to legal and constitutional principles.
3. Protecting rights of legislators: upholding the principles of natural justice and the right
to free speech, the judgment protected the rights of the legislators. This creates a
major impact on empowering them to represent their constituents
4. Setting precedents for future cases: this judgment potentially influences the conduct
of legislative assemblies across the country.
5. Public awareness: this case and the judgment received significant media attention,
raising public awareness about the functioning of legislative assemblies and the right
of legislators.
The political impact of the case:
1. Strengthening opposition’s rule: the judgement emphasized on the importance of the
opposition’s role in a democratic setup. It tells how the opposition cannot be
suppressed thereby strengthening democratic processes.
2. Impact on political dynamics: the ruling could potentially influence the dynamics
between the ruling parties and the opposition parties in the legislative assembly across
the country.
3. Influence on future legislative actions: the judgement sets a precedent for how the
power to suspend members should be influenced
4. Political accountability: the judgment held the legislative assembly accountable for its
actions, thereby promoting transparency and accountability in the functioning of
legislative bodies
 5. Political discourse: the case received a tremendous amount of attention in the media
influencing political discourse and raising public awareness about the functioning of
legislative assemblies and the rights of legislators.
The Economic impacts of the case:
1. Legislative efficiency: if the assemblies function more smoothly and democratically,
they could potentially pass laws and make decisions more efficiently which could
have economic implications.
2. Political stability: political stability is often linked to economic stability. When the
rights of the legislators and the democratic principles are upheld there would be
political stability that would indirectly impact the economy.
3. Investor Confidence: The rule of law and the fair functioning of democratic
institutions can impact investor confidence. By upholding these principles, the
judgment could potentially influence investor confidence and thus have an economic
impact.
4. Public spending: the suspended MLAs are entitled to all consequential benefits of
being members of the legislative assembly after the court’s decision. This has its own
implications for the public spending.
Observation and conclusion:
The assembly ought to have exercised its authority to remove the MLAs if their misbehavior
was serious enough to justify punishment. In this instance, In this instance, the extended ban
was more detrimental than being kicked out. Re-elections would have been held to fill the
vacancy left by the MLAs' expulsion. As a result, the constituency would have representation.
The ruling stated that the one-year suspension had nothing to do with the authority to suspend
based on self-security. It was decided that the suspension was unconstitutional because it was
unreasonable. The return of the 12 suspended MLAs to the Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly is now possible.