<p>Bengaluru: In a setback to BJP MLC CT Ravi, the High Court of Karnataka on Friday dismissed his petition challenging the criminal proceedings for abusing minister Lakshmi Hebbalkar inside the Legislative Assembly. </p><p>"Calling a fellow woman legislator a prostitute in the legislature has no nexus to the functioning of the House nor has nexus to the transaction of business in the House. No nexus, no Privilege," Justice M Nagaprasanna said in his order. </p><p>The incident had happened at the Suvarna Soudha in Belagavi on December 19, 2024. An FIR was subsequently registered for offences under BNS sections 75 and 79, which deal with a word or a gesture against a woman amounting to outraging her modesty. </p><p>Ravi contended that any speech of any kind in the legislature is completely immune under Article 194 (2) of the Constitution of India, and allowing criminal prosecution in such matters would open a Pandora's box as every legislator would knock the door of constitutional courts alleging defamation. </p>.How can Muslims be considered minority: C T Ravi.<p>Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the alleged word uttered by the petitioner undoubtedly forms the ingredient of both BNS sections 75 and 79. </p><p>"Factually, whether the petitioner has spoken or uttered the word “prostitute” against the complainant or has used such gestures which would demean her dignity or outrage her modesty is till now a mystery, as it has to be investigated into. There is an allegation and the complaint, registered with alacrity, is vivid that words have been spoken. Therefore, these acts which eroded the dignity of a woman or outraged her modesty cannot be protected under the parasol of the legislator’s privilege of anything done inside the House. Immunity from any proceedings is, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of K Ajith case, is not absolute," Justice Nagaprasanna stated. </p><p>The court further said, "The legislature is an exalted forum for deliberation, not a forum for personal vilification. While this court will always remain the sentinel of legislative autonomy, it cannot permit invocation of privilege to stymie the imperatives of justice. The distinction sought to be drawn between the spoken word and overt physical actions within the house is a tenuous one. The legislature is not a sanctuary for defamation or gendered invective, rather an institution where robust debate must be tempered with decorum and respect. I find neither in the alleged acts of the petitioner." </p><p>"Respect and reputation of a woman in any civilised society shows basic civility of any such civilised society. No citizen, in a civilised society, can afford to conceive the idea that he can create a hollow in the honour of a woman. Such thinking is not only lamentable, but deplorable. What forms the fulcrum of the conundrum is certain words spoken on the floor of the house, not by an ordinary citizen, but a responsible representative of the people," said Justice M Nagaprasanna.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: In a setback to BJP MLC CT Ravi, the High Court of Karnataka on Friday dismissed his petition challenging the criminal proceedings for abusing minister Lakshmi Hebbalkar inside the Legislative Assembly. </p><p>"Calling a fellow woman legislator a prostitute in the legislature has no nexus to the functioning of the House nor has nexus to the transaction of business in the House. No nexus, no Privilege," Justice M Nagaprasanna said in his order. </p><p>The incident had happened at the Suvarna Soudha in Belagavi on December 19, 2024. An FIR was subsequently registered for offences under BNS sections 75 and 79, which deal with a word or a gesture against a woman amounting to outraging her modesty. </p><p>Ravi contended that any speech of any kind in the legislature is completely immune under Article 194 (2) of the Constitution of India, and allowing criminal prosecution in such matters would open a Pandora's box as every legislator would knock the door of constitutional courts alleging defamation. </p>.How can Muslims be considered minority: C T Ravi.<p>Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the alleged word uttered by the petitioner undoubtedly forms the ingredient of both BNS sections 75 and 79. </p><p>"Factually, whether the petitioner has spoken or uttered the word “prostitute” against the complainant or has used such gestures which would demean her dignity or outrage her modesty is till now a mystery, as it has to be investigated into. There is an allegation and the complaint, registered with alacrity, is vivid that words have been spoken. Therefore, these acts which eroded the dignity of a woman or outraged her modesty cannot be protected under the parasol of the legislator’s privilege of anything done inside the House. Immunity from any proceedings is, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of K Ajith case, is not absolute," Justice Nagaprasanna stated. </p><p>The court further said, "The legislature is an exalted forum for deliberation, not a forum for personal vilification. While this court will always remain the sentinel of legislative autonomy, it cannot permit invocation of privilege to stymie the imperatives of justice. The distinction sought to be drawn between the spoken word and overt physical actions within the house is a tenuous one. The legislature is not a sanctuary for defamation or gendered invective, rather an institution where robust debate must be tempered with decorum and respect. I find neither in the alleged acts of the petitioner." </p><p>"Respect and reputation of a woman in any civilised society shows basic civility of any such civilised society. No citizen, in a civilised society, can afford to conceive the idea that he can create a hollow in the honour of a woman. Such thinking is not only lamentable, but deplorable. What forms the fulcrum of the conundrum is certain words spoken on the floor of the house, not by an ordinary citizen, but a responsible representative of the people," said Justice M Nagaprasanna.</p>