'What Is The Larger Public Interest In Withdrawing Prosecution?' Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In Kerala Assembly Ruckus Case

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment in the petition filed by the Kerala Government seeking withdrawal of criminal prosecution against 6 CPI(M) members in the 2015 assembly ruckus case.A division bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah reserved the judgment after an elaborate hearing which lasted for nearly four hours."The fact of the matter is that it is public property and government is the custodian of the public property", Justice Chandrachud remarked before closing the arguments. Justice Shah asked why the State Government was pursuing the withdrawal application by raising the defence arguments which ought to be raised by the accused. The bench observed that the point to be examined is if the withdrawal application was advancing public interest.Earlier, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Thiruvananthapuram and the High Court of Kerala had rejected the withdrawal application, following which the Kerala Government approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition. Some of the accused persons also moved the Supreme Court.Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the State Government, started the arguments by saying that the incident happened when then government in 2015 was presenting the budget. There were allegations of corruption against the then government, against which the opposition was protesting. The presentation of budget happened in a charged atmosphere. The senior counsel said that the ruckus erupted after a lady member from the opposition was injured in the melee."It was a ruckus between both the parties. The members of the ruling party were also equally at fault. A complaint was filed against them at the instance of a lady member of opposition", he said. At this juncture, Justice Chandrachud mentioned that even arguments in courts also happen sometimes in a "vituperative and charged atmosphere". Will that justify destruction of court property, he asked."We want to know what was the larger public interest in withdrawing the prosecution", the judge asked."In student or labour agitation, you may not want to prosecute them. What you are submitting is that this is a case of political manifestation", Justice Chandrachud remarked.Ranjit Kumar relied on the judgment in the Baroda Dynamite case to argue that cases of political nature could be withdrawn to bring a quietus to the issue. He also argued that the acts were covered under legislative privileges. The authority to take action with respect to a conduct in the house vests with the Speaker. Once the Speaker has taken action against them for breach of conduct (they were suspended for a week), the criminal prosecution is unwarranted, he argued."A protest is also a speech. It is a manner of freedom of speech. The right is given. The breach of code of conduct of House provides for that. Maybe there was breaking of furniture. But it was still a form of speech and a form of protest", Ranjit Kumar argued.Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for some of the accused, submitted " In 2015, there was a ruckus and in that ruckus, property was destroyed. Today a new government has come to place. If the PP feels that this was a political issue and there is no reason to agitate it and that it would be the subject of media. It might be a ground for withdrawal. Is it a situation where decision taken by the PP destroys the law of the land ? This is my primary submission. I cannot go into the defence", he said.Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for an intervenor, opposed the petition. He said that the protection of legislative privileges cannot be claimed for vandalism committed within the house."Is the privilege claimed that the house members have the right to destroy public property, abuse the Speaker and destroy his chair? Is that the privilege claimed?Are such activities adjuncts of free speech? In my respectful submissions, neither such a privilege can be claimed nor such acts are adjuncts of free speech", he submitted."Parliamentary privileges are intended to be enjoyed on behalf of the people in their interests.If you damaged public property out of taxpayers money then how can you claim privilege. Privileges are those rights which are necessary for the house to perform its legislative functions. None enjoys any privilege against any criminal proceedings", he argued. He also said that the withdrawal application was against the objectives of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.On the last hearing date, the bench had made oral observations disapproving the attempt of the state to withdraw the case against the legislators."Prima facie, we have to take a strict view. This sort of behaviour is unacceptable. We will not condone this sort of behaviour of an MLA who destroyed public property. You have to face trial",Justice Chandrachud had told Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar who was appearing for the State.The State's counsel submitted that the MLAs were suspended by the Speaker for their behaviour. He...

'What Is The Larger Public Interest In Withdrawing Prosecution?' Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In Kerala Assembly Ruckus Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

"The fact of the matter is that it is public property and government is the custodian of the public property", Justice Chandrachud remarked before closing the arguments.

Tags