Read Time: 07 minutes

Supreme Court rejected Kerala Government’s plea seeking permission to withdraw cases against prominent leaders of the CPM for vandalism in the Assembly in 2015.

The Court said that parliamentary privileges cannot become a gateway to claim exception from the General Law of the Land; "Allowing the application will only result in giving the leaders the freedom to not follow the mandate of law."

A Division Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah, while pronouncing the verdict phrased the history of parliamentary privileges and said, 

"There is a valid rationale for provision in the privileges & immunities of house of common & India. It is to create an environment for the leaders to discharge their function freely that they are provided privileges & immunity.

Art 105(1) & Art 194(1) deals with the provisions wherein free speech can be exercised in the Parliament to enalbe the leaders to discharge their duties & functions freely.

The reliance of the appellants to use PV Narasimha Rao's case is unsatisfactory.

Privileges and immunity are not a gateway to claim exemption from criminal law and that would be a betrayal to the citizens. The withdrawal application which was filed by the incorrect reading of Article 194."

Court upheld the order of the CJM Thiruvananthpuram and added that the act in the house of the State, cannot be equated with Freedom of Speech or parliamentary priveleges.

Top Court had reserved orders in the present matter on July 15.

A Division Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah, in the earlier hearing said,

““Is it in the interest of justice to throw things and damage material at the sanctum sanctorum of democracy?”

It was the contention of the Senior Counsel, Mr. Jethmalani that privilege under the Constitution accorded to the members of Legislative Assembly cannot be expanded to mean ruckus or inorder in the House;

“I don't understand what privilege is being claimed here? Are they claiming a privilege that the members have a right to damage property or that such behaviour is their right while budget is being presented?”

Defending the then Kerala Govt., Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar submitted that Freedom of Speech is inclusive of Right to Protest.

On March 13, 2015, the opposition while protesting against the ruling government’s Finance Minister from presenting the Budget, trashed the Speaker’s Dias, destroyed microphone unit, computer and the lights around.

Around 20 MLAs and 12 watch and ward staff were reportedly injured.

On April 28, Kerala Government moved a plea seeking stay of the High Court order dated March 12, 2021.

Question dealt by the Court therein was,

Whether the acts allegedly committed by the accused, which, if proven, would be offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, are to be reckoned as part of the proceedings of the House, for the purpose of their protection?

High Court had observed,

“The answer can only be in the negative, since privileges and immunities are provided to ensure smooth functioning of the House by guaranteeing absolute freedom to the members to speak and participate in its deliberations. Here the allegation is of the functioning of the Assembly Session having been disrupted by the members by trespassing into the Speakers Dias and committing mischief. The aforementioned acts, if proven to be true, can, by no stretch of imagination, be deemed to be acts done in furtherance of the free functioning of the house”

[FULL JUDGEMENT TO FOLLOW]

Case Title: The State Of Kerala Versus K.Ajith And Ors.| SLP(Crl) No. 4009/2021