'Destruction Of Property Not Freedom Of Speech In House' : Supreme Court Rejects Kerala Govt Plea To Withdraw Prosecution In Assembly Ruckus Case

The criminal prosecution against six members of the Left Democratic Front , who are accused in the Kerala assembly ruckus case of 2015, cannot be withdrawn, held the Supreme Court on Wednesday."The action of the members have trodden past the constitutional means", the Supreme Court observed while holding that they cannot claim protection of legislative privileges and immunity under Article 194 of the Constitution.Dismissing the special leave petitions filed by the State of Kerala and the accused, a division bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah upheld the March 12 judgment of the Kerala High Court which had approved the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dismissing the application filed by the Prosecutor under Section 321 of the CrPC seeking withdrawal of prosecution."Privileges and immunity are not a gateway to claim exemption from criminal law and that would be a betrayal to the citizens. The entire withdrawal application was filed based on a misconception of Article 194", Justice Chandrachud said reading out the excerpts from the judgment today morning.The following key observations were made by Justice Chandrachud while pronouncing the judgment in open court :The purpose of bestowing privileges on legislators is to enable them to perform their legislative functions without hindrance or without fear or favour. They are not a mark of status which keep legislators on an unequal pedestal.Legislators should act within the parameters of the public trust imposed on them to do their duty.To claim an exemption from application from criminal law for legislators would be to betray the trust reposed on them by the public. Privileges and immunity are not a gateway to claim exemption from criminal law.Committing destruction of property cannot be equated to freedom of speech in the House. The argument that the acts were done in protest is unsatisfactory. Criminal law must take its normal course.Such a ruckus cannot be held to be a Parliamentary proceeding. Members of state legislature has upon them a public trust and withdrawal of cases will allow an exemption of members from criminal law. Allowing the withdrawal Application under these circumstances would amount to interference with normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons. The Supreme Court also observed that the High Court committed a mistake while relying on the minority judgment of Justice PN Bhagwati in Sheo Nandan Paswan vs State of Bihar case on the point of Section 321 CrPC. However, the said mistake does not affect the ultimate conclusions of the High Court, the Supreme Court added.During the hearing, the Supreme Court had made several oral observations disapproving the attempt of the State of Kerala in seeking withdrawal of the prosecution. The bench had said that the behaviour of legislators destroying public property of the assembly was unacceptable and cannot be condoned. The ruckus happened in March 2015, while the CPI(M) members were protesting against the then UDF government over the bar bribery allegations against the then Finance Minister KM Mani, who was trying to present the budget speech.The argument advanced by the State, represented by the Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, was that the action of the members were protected by legislative privileges under Article 194 of the Constitution. There cannot be no criminal prosecution with respect to acts done within the house, and the only authority to take action was the Speaker, the State argued. However, the bench had responded by asking if a legislator can claim immunity for criminal acts done within the house. Justice Chandrachud posed a hypothetical question by asking if a member shoots within the house using a revolver, can he claim immunity from prosecution by citing legislative privileges.'Unacceptable Behavior; Will Not Condone Destruction Of Public Properties By MLAs' : Supreme Court On Kerala Assembly Ruckus CaseThe bench was also not prepared to accept the argument of the State that since the Speaker has already taken action against the offenders by suspending them, criminal prosecution was unwarranted. The bench had observed that they should also face action for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.When the state's counsel argued that the ruckus happened in the middle of a protest amid a charged atmosphere, Justice Chandrachud had commented "At times arguments in courts also turn vituperative. Would that justify destruction of court property?".The bench had also repeatedly asked the State why it was adopting the defence arguments of the accused, and wondered if there was any public interest in pursuing the withdrawal application.Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta had appeared for the accused. The bench also heard the arguments of Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani (for an intervenor) and Advocate MR Ramesh Babu for Ramesh Chennithala, the then Home Minister and former Leader of Opposition.Out of the accused, V Sivankutty is...

'Destruction Of Property Not Freedom Of Speech In House' : Supreme Court Rejects Kerala Govt Plea To Withdraw Prosecution In Assembly Ruckus Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags