Vandalism inside House not freedom of speech: SC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared that a member of the legislature cannot claim parliamentary privileges or immunity to acts of vandalism or destruction of properties inside the House.

"Privileges and immunities are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general law of the land, particularly the criminal law which governs the action of every citizen. To claim an exemption from the application of criminal law would be to betray the trust, impressed on the character of elected representatives as the makers and enactors of the law," a bench presided over by Justice D Y Chandrachud said.

The court said a member of the legislature, including of opposition, has a right to protest on the floor but they are not a mark of status which makes the legislators stand on an unequal pedestal.

The court maintained that destruction of properties inside the House cannot be equated with freedom of speech, enjoyed as privileges and immunities by the legislators to let them function without hindrance, fear or favour.

The top court dismissed a plea by the Kerala government to allow withdrawal of prosecution of CPI(M) leaders including Education Minister V Sivankutty for damaging furniture and articles including the Speaker’s chair, computer, mike, emergency lamp and electronic panel, causing a loss of Rs 2.20 lakh, during their protest as opposition leaders in 2015.

"The persons, named as the accused, held a responsible elected office as MLAs in the Legislative Assembly. Like any other citizen, they are subject to the boundaries of lawful behaviour set by criminal law. No member of an elected legislature can claim either a privilege or immunity to stand above the sanctions of the criminal law, which applies equally to all citizens," the bench, also comprising Justice M R Shah, said.

The court highlighted that freedom of speech in Parliament and the State Legislatures was to ensure elected representatives 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," Justice Chandrachud wrote in a 74-page judgement on behalf of the bench.

The court said the public prosecutor in the case filed an application for withdrawal of prosecution on a misconception that Article 194 of the Constitution provided privileges and immunities to elected members of the legislature from the general application of the criminal law.

"Allowing the prosecution to be withdrawn would only result in a singular result, which is that the 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," the bench said.

The top court said it would exercise caution before disturbing concurrent findings of the High Court and the trial court which had refused withdrawal of prosecution.