Acts of indiscipline inside Parliament, state assemblies can’t be condoned: SC

New Delhi: Acts of indiscipline inside Parliament and the state assemblies cannot be condoned, the Supreme Court on Monday said, taking a strict view of a March 2015 incident in which four former and two current members of the Kerala legislative assembly created a ruckus while protesting the presentation of the annual finance budget

New Delhi: Acts of indiscipline inside Parliament and the state assemblies cannot be condoned, the Supreme Court on Monday said, taking a strict view of a March 2015 incident in which four former and two current members of the Kerala legislative assembly created a ruckus while protesting the presentation of the annual finance budget.

HT Image

“This kind of behaviour is unacceptable,” said a bench of justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, pointing to the unruly behaviour by the legislators, including climbing on to the Speaker’s dais, throwing microphones, and destroying public property worth over ₹2.2 lakh.

“Such kinds of incidents are increasing, and they are happening even in Parliament. We can’t condone the behaviour of MLAs who disrupt the House by throwing the mic and destroying public property,” the bench observed.

The court was hearing separate appeals filed by the six current and former legislators and the state against a Match 12 order of the Kerala high Court, which refused to go with the decision taken by the public prosecutor to withdraw the cases against the six current and former MLAs – KT Jaleel, V Sivankutty, CK Sadasivan, EP Jayarajan, K Ajith and Kunjammadu Master, all members of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) alliance.

The comments by the top court could lead to trouble for Jaleel and Sivankutty, who are members of the Kerala assembly, and Sivankutty is also the state’s Education Minister. The case against them was lodged under sections 447 (criminal trespass) and 427 (causing mischief) of the Indian Penal Code. They were also booked under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984which is punishable with a maximum sentence of five years. If they are convicted, and the sentence awarded is more than two years, the MLAs would have to undergo disqualification proceedings under the Representation of Peoples Act.

Holding a prima facie view in favour of the high court, the top court said, “We must ensure some modicum of decorum is maintained in legislative bodies. These are sentinels of democracy. They are MLAs, and they represent the people. What is the message being given that my MLA is behaving in this manner? They have to face trial. There cannot be any deference to such kind of behaviour.”

The incident in question took place on March 13, 2015. The case was investigated by Kerala Police, and a report submitted to the chief judicial magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. After the trial court took cognisance of the charges, in 2019, Left Front government sought withdrawal of cases through the public prosecutor under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The chief judicial magistrate refused the withdrawal, a view that the Kerala high court later concurred with.

The Kerala government, through senior advocate Ranjit Kumar relied on the privileges of MLAs and the immunity granted against criminal prosecution, for proceedings inside the House. “The MLAs in question were suspended for seven days. They have a right to protest and they protested against the tabling of Budget by the then finance Minister, who was corrupt,” said Kumar.

The finance minister at the time was KM Mani, whose party, Kerala Congress (Mani), is a part of the present Left Democratic Front (LDF) government led by Pinarayi Vijayan.

The Supreme Court bench asked the state: “What is the larger public interest in shielding MLAs who have disrupted the House proceedings and avoided presentation of Budget by the finance minister? Budget presentation is of utmost importance irrespective of the personality who is submitting it.” On the right to protest, the court refused to approve such manner of protest as it said, “Prima facie, we have to take a strict view of this kind of behaviour.”

The matter has been posted to July 15 as the state requested for time to provide case laws in support of its arguments.