Mumbai, March 10 The Maharashtra Legislative Council's Privileges Committee recommended a 30-day civil imprisonment for an NCP (SP) worker for allegedly using "abusive and offensive" language against Chairman Ram Shinde.
Presenting the committee's report in the council, committee chairman and BJP MLC Prasad Lad noted that the panel viewed the incident as a serious breach of privilege and an insult to the dignity of the House.
"Given the severity of the abusive language used by NCP (SP) worker Suryakant More against Chairman Ram Shinde, the incident is considered a rare case. We recommend a 30-day civil imprisonment for More," Lad said in the House.
He, however, pointed out that the punishment would technically lapse once the council's proceedings are adjourned until the next session.
"Such punishment becomes void once the council's functioning is suspended until the next session. In such a case, More will be released from prison once the session is over. Therefore, the committee recommends that the remaining days of imprisonment be completed during the next session of the council," Lad said.
The session of the state legislative council will conclude on March 25.
The BJP leader said that such stringent action was necessary to send a strong message against the use of abusive language targeting constitutional authorities.
"Such action is necessary against Suryakant More to send a strong message to people using such abusive language. More has not only insulted the current chairman of the council but also insulted all the previous members of the Upper House," he said.
The controversy dates back to November 2024, when More allegedly used objectionable language against Shinde during a dispute in the Karjat-Jamkhed assembly constituency, where the latter had been defeated by NCP (SP) MLA Rohit Pawar in the assembly election.
Following the remarks, a motion was moved against More before the legislature's Privileges Committee.
More had also made allegations against Shinde, including claims regarding electronic voting machines and political defections, which further escalated the dispute.
The Privileges Committee subsequently examined the complaint and recommended punitive action, stating that the remarks amounted to a breach of privilege and contempt of the House.