Live
- Actor Nikhil Siddharth roots for TDP, takes part in campaign
- Hyderabad: Religious jingoism will not fill empty stomachs says K Chandrashekar Rao
- Hyderabad: BJP does not spare even Gods says Revanth Reddy
- Hyderabad: Will end 4% quota for Muslims in TS says Amit Shah
- Jagan failed to keep poll promises: Sharmila
- Beware of Jagan’s dramas, cautions Naidu
- Hyderabad: Ghose panel to quiz KCR
- Viveka Murder: Avinash innocent, asserts Jagan
- Viveka’s wife questions Jagan’s move to field Avinash
- New Delhi: 88 seats in 13 states go for polling today
Excellent SC judgement on Kerala lawmakers
Supreme Court (File/Photo)
Are the lawmakers privileged to be covered under the immunity granted to them due to their positions even if they cross the Constitutional limits in their behaviour? This was the question that came up before the Supreme Court the other day but the court was categorical in ruling that the act of the Kerala MLAs accused of breaching the limits of decency shall not be covered under the immunity provided to them
Are the lawmakers privileged to be covered under the immunity granted to them due to their positions even if they cross the Constitutional limits in their behaviour? This was the question that came up before the Supreme Court the other day but the court was categorical in ruling that the act of the Kerala MLAs accused of breaching the limits of decency shall not be covered under the immunity provided to them. The Apex Court was dealing with the plea of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Kerala, that permission may be granted to withdraw cases against the party's MLAs for vandalism. This case pertains to 2015.
The Supreme Court ruled "committing destruction of property in the assembly cannot be equated to freedom of speech in the house. Allowing withdrawal of cases under these circumstances would amount to interference with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons". It held that the immunity conferred on MPs/ MLAs is to help them discharge their functions without fear or favour but it is not a mark of status which makes them stand on a higher footing as compared to other citizens.
We keep hearing about these privileges often and we have also witnessed in the past, how some MPs and MLAs create ruckus at public places flaunting their privileges. Spats at the toll gates are quite frequent with the political leaders and their chamchas refusing to pay tolls for their vehicles. Misuse of position is a norm in this country. To treat privileges and immunity as a passage to claim exemption from criminal law tantamounts to a betrayal of the citizens.
The Court held: 'immunity of members from criminal law is for the purpose of enabling them to perform functions without hindrance, fear or favour. Members are required to stay true to their oath and immunity is to help them discharge their functions freely. Privileges and immunity is not a mark of status which makes them stand on an unequal footing," the Court said. Earlier the Kerala High court judgment had also correctly held that admissibility of evidence etc would be looked into by the trial court.
The Supreme Court concluded "we hold there is no merit in the appeals by the Kerala government". The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah on a petition 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 the accused including sitting Ministers.
The State Government said in its petition that the case was registered without the sanction of the Speaker of the House for an incident which occurred while the Assembly was in session. The plea maintained 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 that happened on the floor of the House. Well, that might be a privilege, but the Honourable judges thought otherwise. Ordinary mortals concur with the judgment. Don't they?
