SC says Kerala Left MLAs to face criminal prosecution for ruckus in Assembly
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has rejected the Kerala government's plea to withdraw criminal prosecution against six members of the CPI (M) for causing a ruckus in the Kerala assembly in 2015.
The division bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah dismissed the special leave petitions filed by the State of Kerala and the accused and upheld the judgment of the Kerala High Court.
During the hearing, the bench made several disapproving oral observations and said that the behaviour of legislators destroying public property of the assembly was unacceptable and cannot be condoned.
The court said that the case cannot be withdrawn and the actions of the members have "trodden past the constitutional means". The court added that the accused cannot claim the protection of legislative privileges and immunity under Article 194, reported Live Law.
Justice Chandrachud in his judgment said that the privileges of immunity are not a gateway to claim exemption from criminal law. He observed that such protection will be a betrayal to the citizens of India. He noted that the withdrawal application by the accused is based on a misconception of Article 194.
The Supreme Court bench also pointed out that destruction of property cannot be equated to freedom of speech in the House, and such a ruckus cannot be held to be a Parliamentary proceeding, said the Live Law report.
The incident in question took place in March 2015, when then Finance Minister KM Mani was trying to present the budget. The CPI (M) members were protesting against the then UDF government regarding the bar bribery allegations.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the Kerala state, argued that the acts done within the House cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution, and the only authority to take action was the Speaker.
Justice Chandrachud asked if a legislator can claim immunity for criminal acts done within the House by posing a hypothetical scenario of a member committing murder in the House.
The Supreme Court said that the purpose of privileges given to the legislators is to enable them to perform legislative functions without hindrance or fear or favour. The privileges are not "a mark of status which keeps legislators on an unequal pedestal". The court declared that legislators should act within the parameters of the public trust imposed on them to do their duty.
