A sharp rebuke of lewdness in politics

The Karnataka High Court’s dismissal of BJP MLC C T Ravi’s plea to quash criminal proceedings against him reaffirms a fundamental principle: legislative privilege cannot be weaponised to demean, defame, or degrade.

The ruling serves as a timely reminder that Constitutional immunity is not a free pass for indecency—least of all for misogynistic slurs. The case stems from an incident in December 2024, when Women and Child Development Minister Laxmi Hebbalkar accused Ravi of calling her a “prostitute” during a legislative council session. While Chairman Basavaraj Horatti claimed the remark was not recorded in the official transcript, private news channels reportedly captured the offensive word, prompting a CID probe. Both Horatti and Ravi stonewalled the investigations, invoking legislative privilege—a stance the court has now unequivocally rejected.

In his judgement, Justice M Nagaprasanna delivered a strong rebuke: “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.” Citing the Supreme Court, the judge underlined that privilege under 194 (2) of the Constitution is not absolute. He said: “Immunity is not meant to shield crimes cloaked in legislative speech. If the act is criminal in nature, privilege cannot be stretched to shield it.” The court rightly noted that Ravi’s alleged remark violated Section 75 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises insults to a woman’s modesty. More crucially, the judgement dismantles the dangerous notion that legislative immunity can serve as a ‘parasol’ for misogyny. 

By refusing to cooperate with the probe, both Horatti and Ravi set a wrong precedent. If the Chairman, as the custodian of the House, cannot defend a member, especially a woman subjected to egregious abuse, it erodes the very foundation of parliamentary ethics. Ravi’s reluctance to face investigation raises an obvious question: If the remark was never made, why obstruct a fair inquiry? The verdict sends a clear message that legislators are not above the law. Immunity exists to ensure fearless debates, not to legitimise slander or abuse. Legislators must face the consequences, like anyone else, when they cross the line into criminality. The law must take its course now. The CID must expedite its probe, and both Horatti and Ravi must cooperate fully. This case transcends politics. It is not just about justice for Hebbalkar, but also about restoring dignity to the legislature, and affirming that no woman, indeed no citizen, is degraded under the false cover of privilege.