Justice V Ramasubramanian held that none of Vijaykant's contentions were acceptable and said the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Raja Ram Pal case for the exercising the power of judicial review were not satisfied.
Vijaykant was suspended for breach of privilege during a heated exchange with Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa in the assembly on Feb 1.
The judge said the petitioner, in his reply to the notice sent by the Assembly Secretariat, did not deny the charge that he made threatening gestures towards the Treasury benches.
In his petition, the actor-turned-politician contended that the power of judicial review had now been recognised to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution. There had been gross violation of the principles of natural justice and hence scope for court's intervention, he had claimed.
Vijayakant had not established the prejudice caused to him on account of non-supply of the copies of the report to other members, Justice Ramasubramanian said adding the denial in his reply that he did not talk or behave in a manner amounting to any breach of privilege, was only a general denial.
On the petitioner's contention that suspension for a period spilling over to two sessions was impermissible, The Judge said the limitation that a member could not be suspended for a period longer than the duration of the remainder of the session, may be a limitation on the power of the Speaker, but not a limitation on the power of the House.
Once it was accepted that the House had the power even to expel a member, then it followed as a corollary that suspension spilling over two sessions was also permissible.
The Additional Advocate General submitted that the scope of judicial review in such cases was limited only to gross or substantive illegality or unconstitutionality. No mala fide could be attributed to an august body, such as the legislature of a state, he said. PTI GR VS
