Sharma's counsel told Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva that due to the majority enjoyed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), there was "bias and illegality" in the way he was suspended from the assembly and prescribed procedures were not followed.
"The facts smack of clear malafide of the respondent (Legislative Assembly)," his counsel said, adding, "I am showing the manner in which democratic functioning has been stonewalled in the Assembly".
The court however asked the counsel, "First you have to show what is the extent of judicial intervention in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly?"
The counsel, who read out part of proceedings of the assembly, said she would refer to the facts of the matter first and then address this issue.
When his lawyer said that all members of Ethics Committee which dealt with this matter were members of AAP, the court asked, "does the rules prescribe that Ethics Committee should have at least a member of the opposition party?"
Earlier, the lawyer representing Sharma, who was
suspended from the assembly on March 31 for two sessions, had said that the assembly cannot be represented by Delhi government. The government has in turn contended that assembly cannot be made a party.
The court is hearing his plea challenging his suspension.
The Delhi government had earlier alleged that the BJP MLA in the past too had engaged in "immoral, violent and appalling behaviour", while opposing the maintainability of Sharma's plea challenging his suspension.
The Ethics Committee had earlier "unanimously" recommended stripping Sharma of his assembly membership for his remarks against Lamba and being "unrepentant" about it.
Sharma had earlier said "my intention was not to hurt Lamba as she is like my sister, but if she felt offended I express regret over it".