Vandalism Inside The House Does Not Come Under Freedom Of Speech: SC

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• The ruckus had taken place in March 2015.
• The incident occurred while the CPI(M) members were protesting against the then UDF government, regarding the bar bribery allegations made against the then Finance Minister KM Mani, who was trying to present the budget speech.

ARGUMENTS BY THE STATE

• Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the state, put forth the argument that the actions of the members of the legislators were protected by legislative privileges under Article 112 of the Constitution.
• There cannot be any criminal prosecution with respect to acts done by the members inside the house, and only the Speaker has the authority to take action.
• To this, the Bench responded by asking if a legislator can claim immunity for criminal acts that are conducted within the house.
• Justice Chandrachud posed a hypothetical question and asked even if a member shoots inside the house using a revolver, is he entitled to claim immunity from the prosecution by citing legislative privileges.

COMMENTS BY JUSTICE CHANDRACHUD

Justice Chandrachud while pronouncing the judgment in open court made the following observations:

• Privileges and immunity cannot be used as a gateway to claim exemption from criminal law as that would be a betrayal to the citizens.
• Legislators are bestowed with the privileges with the aim to enable them to perform their legislative functions without hindrance or without any fear or favour. They are not the mark of status which keeps legislators on an unequal pedestal.
• Legislators must act within the parameters of the public trust which are imposed upon them to perform their duties.
• Committing destruction of property cannot be equated with Freedom of Speech inside the House. The argument defending that the acts were done in protest is highly unsatisfactory. Normal course of criminal law has to be followed.
• A Parliamentary proceeding must not witness such a ruckus.
• As public trust is bestowed upon the members of state legislature, allowing the withdrawal application under these circumstances would definitely amount to interference with normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons.

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

• On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution going on against six members of the Left Democratic Front accused in the Kerala assembly ruckus case of 2015 cannot be withdrawn.
• Supreme Court observed that protection of legislative privileges and immunity under Article 194 of the Constitution cannot be claimed as their actions have trodden past the constitutional means.
• A Division Bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah dismissed the special leave petitions filed by the State of Kerala and the accused and upheld the judgement delivered by Kerala High Court on March 12.
• That judgement had approved the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order of dismissing the application which was filed by the Prosecutor under Section 321 of the CrPC requesting withdrawal of prosecution.
• Further, the Bench held that the behaviour shown by the legislators of destroying public property in the assembly was unacceptable and cannot be condoned.
• The Bench was also of the view that they should also face action for the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

What do you think about this case?