The Supreme Court on Monday took an unfavourable prima face view of the conduct by MLAs belonging to the Left parties in Kerala during the ruckus that took place inside the Legislative Assembly in 2015. .A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said that such behaviour which involved throwing microphone and causing damage to public property should be met with legal action."Prima facie we have to take a strict view of this kind of behavior. This is not acceptable behavior. Look at the behaviour of MLA who throws mic on the floor of the house. He must face trial," said Justice Chandrachud. "They are MLAs, they were representing the people," Justice Shah weighed in. .The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Kerala government seeking permission to withdraw cases against prominent CPI(M) leaders for vandalism in the Kerala Assembly in 2015 when the current ruling party in the State was in opposition..The plea was filed against a March 12, 2021 order of the Kerala High Court which had dismissed the State's petition against an order of rejection by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court at Thiruvananthapuram, seeking permission to withdraw prosecution against accused including sitting ministers..The Court maintained on Monday that such behaviour cannot be condoned and the accused should face trial under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act."This kind of behaviour cannot be condoned. That is why face trial under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. What is the use of guarding an MLA who prevented the passage of a finance bill? Irrespective of the reputation of the finance minister, the passage of the bill is of utmost importance," said Justice Chandrachud. .He maintained that "these (assembly proceedings) are "sentinels of democracy" and that it is essential to "maintain a sense of decorum"."Now these incidents are happening (frequently). It is happening in the parliament too," Justice Shah added..The Court eventually adjourned the matter for July 15 since it is yet to examine certain additional documents. .The State government stated in its petition that the High Court failed to appreciate that the alleged incident had occurred while the assembly was in session and no crime could have been registered against the MLAs without previous sanction of the Speaker of the house for an incident which happened on the floor of the house."The FIR registered by the Secretary Legislative Assembly without the consent of the Speaker is wrong...the act of the accused persons being in relation to their function to protest as members of the legislative assembly the MLA’s who are accused in this FIR had entitled to get protection under the Constitution," the petition said.In this regard, the State also highlighted Articles 105(3) and 194(3) of the Constitution of India which confers certain privileges and immunities on the members of the parliament and State legislature."Therefore it not proper to the Secretary of Legislative Assembly to file cases against MLAs with regard to an incident that happened on the floor of the House during the protest made by the opposition members," the plea emphasised.The appeal further stated that the question involved is with regard to the interpretation of Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which gives powers to the prosecutor to file an application for withdrawal of a case."This Hon’ble Court settled the proposition of law on this aspect in a number of decisions. What can be look into by the court whether the public prosecutor had filed the application for withdrawal in good faith after independently analysing the whole situation and whether the withdrawal of the cases will help the ends of justice," the appeal said..The Kerala High Court in its order had noted that question 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."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," the High Court had said..[READ LIVE THREAD]
The Supreme Court on Monday took an unfavourable prima face view of the conduct by MLAs belonging to the Left parties in Kerala during the ruckus that took place inside the Legislative Assembly in 2015. .A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said that such behaviour which involved throwing microphone and causing damage to public property should be met with legal action."Prima facie we have to take a strict view of this kind of behavior. This is not acceptable behavior. Look at the behaviour of MLA who throws mic on the floor of the house. He must face trial," said Justice Chandrachud. "They are MLAs, they were representing the people," Justice Shah weighed in. .The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Kerala government seeking permission to withdraw cases against prominent CPI(M) leaders for vandalism in the Kerala Assembly in 2015 when the current ruling party in the State was in opposition..The plea was filed against a March 12, 2021 order of the Kerala High Court which had dismissed the State's petition against an order of rejection by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court at Thiruvananthapuram, seeking permission to withdraw prosecution against accused including sitting ministers..The Court maintained on Monday that such behaviour cannot be condoned and the accused should face trial under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act."This kind of behaviour cannot be condoned. That is why face trial under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. What is the use of guarding an MLA who prevented the passage of a finance bill? Irrespective of the reputation of the finance minister, the passage of the bill is of utmost importance," said Justice Chandrachud. .He maintained that "these (assembly proceedings) are "sentinels of democracy" and that it is essential to "maintain a sense of decorum"."Now these incidents are happening (frequently). It is happening in the parliament too," Justice Shah added..The Court eventually adjourned the matter for July 15 since it is yet to examine certain additional documents. .The State government stated in its petition that the High Court failed to appreciate that the alleged incident had occurred while the assembly was in session and no crime could have been registered against the MLAs without previous sanction of the Speaker of the house for an incident which happened on the floor of the house."The FIR registered by the Secretary Legislative Assembly without the consent of the Speaker is wrong...the act of the accused persons being in relation to their function to protest as members of the legislative assembly the MLA’s who are accused in this FIR had entitled to get protection under the Constitution," the petition said.In this regard, the State also highlighted Articles 105(3) and 194(3) of the Constitution of India which confers certain privileges and immunities on the members of the parliament and State legislature."Therefore it not proper to the Secretary of Legislative Assembly to file cases against MLAs with regard to an incident that happened on the floor of the House during the protest made by the opposition members," the plea emphasised.The appeal further stated that the question involved is with regard to the interpretation of Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which gives powers to the prosecutor to file an application for withdrawal of a case."This Hon’ble Court settled the proposition of law on this aspect in a number of decisions. What can be look into by the court whether the public prosecutor had filed the application for withdrawal in good faith after independently analysing the whole situation and whether the withdrawal of the cases will help the ends of justice," the appeal said..The Kerala High Court in its order had noted that question 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."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," the High Court had said..[READ LIVE THREAD]
