Supreme Court issues notice on AAP leader Raghav Chadha’s plea against suspension from Rajya Sabha

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a petition filed by AAP Rajya Sabha MP from Punjab Raghav Chadha challenging his indefinite suspension from the Upper House.Requesting Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist it in the matter, a Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud posted Chadha’s petition for October 30 after senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi questioned the legality of indefinite suspension of Chadha from the Upper House pending an inquiry.Dwivedi argued that Rule 256 would allow suspension till the end of the session in respect of the conduct amounting to disregarding the authority of the chair or disrupting the proceedings of the House and Rule 266 — which deals with residuary powers of the Rajya Sabha Chairperson — cannot be used to suspend a member and the tenure of suspension provided for in Rule 256(2) cannot be extended.Chadha was suspended from the Rajya Sabha on August 11 during the Monsoon Session over a breach of privileges complaint after the House passed a motion moved by Leader of the House Piyush Goyal seeking action against him for including the names of some members of the Upper House without their consent in a proposed select committee for the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023.  His suspension from the Rajya Sabha is to remain in force until the committee of privileges probing the case against him submits its report.Chadha has contended that the power to suspend indefinitely is dangerously open to excess and abuse.”The power to suspend is meant only to be used as a shield and not as a sword, that is, it cannot be penal,” Chadha said in his petition, adding, “The suspension is in clear breach of Rule 256 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States, which incorporates a categorical prohibition against the suspension of any member for a period exceeding the remainder of the session.”Chadha contended that suspension beyond the remaining period of an ongoing session would not only be a grossly irrational measure, but would also be violative of basic democratic values owing to the unessential deprivation of the member concerned and more importantly, the constituency remaining unrepresented in the House.