In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld prosecution of six Left party MLAs for creating ruckus in the State Assembly in 2015.
The apex court said committing acts of destruction of public property cannot be equated with either freedom of speech in the legislature or with forms of protest legitimately available to the members of the Opposition.
During the Congress-led UDF regime, the CPI(M)-led Opposition had prevented the Budget presentation in 2015 by creating mayhem inside the Assembly. The criminal case was registered against six MLAs (one person currently a Minister now).
The LDF Government’s move to withdraw the case was objected by trial court and the High Court. Dismissing the Kerala Government plea, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said destruction of public property within the House by members to lodge their protest against presentation of budget cannot be regarded as “essential for exercising their legislative functions”.
“The actions of the members have trodden past the line of Constitutional means, and is thus not covered by the privileges guaranteed under the Constitution,” the SC said.
“Privileges and immunities are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general law of the land, particularly as in this case, the criminal law which governs the action of every citizen,” the SC said in its 74-page judgment, no member of an elected legislature can claim either a privilege or an immunity to stand above the sanctions of criminal law.
The apex court noted that there has been a growing recognition and consensus both in the apex court and Parliament that acts of destruction of public and private property in the name of protests should not be tolerated.
“To allow the prosecution to be withdrawn in the face of these allegations, in respect of which upon investigation a final report has been submitted under section 173 of the CrPC and cognizance has been taken, would amount to an interference with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons,” the top court said.
The bench, referring to Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution which deal with privileges and immunities of MPs and MLAs, said the recognition that there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament and State legislatures underlines the need to ensure the existence of conditions in which lawmakers can perform their duties and functions effectively.
“Those duties and functions are as much a matter of duty and trust as they are of a right inhering in the representatives who are chosen by the people. We miss the wood for the trees if we focus on rights without the corresponding duties cast upon elected public representatives,” the bench said.
It said to claim an exemption from the application of criminal law would be to betray the trust which is impressed on the character of elected representatives as the makers and enactors of law.
The landmark judgment said allowing the prosecution to be withdrawn would only result in a singular result that elected representatives are exempt from the mandate of criminal law.
“This cannot be countenanced as being in aid of the broad ends of public justice,” it said.
The bench rejected the contention that prosecution against the accused in the case is vitiated for want of sanction of the Speaker. The bench also rejected the contentions regarding video recording of the incident, saying it was not a “proceeding” of the Assembly which would be protected from legal proceedings under Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
“As held above, that acts of destruction of public property are not privileged under the first limb of Article 194(2). Consequently, acts of vandalism cannot be said to be manifestations of the freedom of speech and be termed as ‘proceedings’ of the Assembly,” it said.
The bench said it was not the intention of the drafters of the Constitution to extend interpretation of ‘freedom of speech’ to include criminal acts by placing them under a “veil of protest”.