<p>The Supreme Court’s ruling that there is no protection on grounds of privilege or free speech for violence and vandalism by legislators on the floor of the legislature is a welcome assertion of the need for right and parliamentary conduct by the elected representatives of the people. A crime recognised as a crime by the country’s penal laws should be treated as such even if it is committed in the legislature, but many legislators have got away with such offences in the past. Parliamentary privilege is often invoked to avoid legal scrutiny, investigation and prosecution of violent actions by legislators. Legislative privileges have not been clearly defined and codified, but it should be clear that they are only intended to protect legislators in the discharge of their legal and legitimate duties, and not to shield them from the consequences of violence on the floor of the legislature. </p>.<p>The ruling was given in a case relating to vandalism in the Kerala Assembly in 2015 by members of the Left Democratic Front (LDF), which was in the opposition then. Protesting against the presentation of the state budget by the then finance minister who was facing charges of corruption, some LDF legislators vandalised the Assembly hall, causing much damage. Cases were registered against six MLAs, one of whom is a minister now. After the LDF came to power, the government sought to withdraw the cases. But the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Thiruvananthapuram rejected the plea for withdrawal of cases and the High Court upheld the ruling. The Supreme Court ruling has come on an appeal by the government against the High Court’s decision. The apex court’s order has paved the way for continuation of the prosecution proceedings against the minister and others. The government invoked Article 194(2) which protects proceedings of the House from adverse legal action. The ruling has helped to better define the scope of the Article. </p>.<p>The Kerala government also claimed that the conduct of the MLAs was only an expression of protest derived from the right to free speech. But no stretch of the right to free speech can cover the upturning of chairs, breaking of desks and throwing of computers and mikes. The government’s argument that the court should not question the government’s power to withdraw a case is also flawed. The court has the power to examine whether the decision to withdraw a case is in good faith and well-intentioned and promotes the public interest. The court’s ruling should clear many misconceptions and wrong claims about the privileges and rights of members of legislatures, and it should be a guide for action in future cases. The prosecution of the six MLAs should also set a good example.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s ruling that there is no protection on grounds of privilege or free speech for violence and vandalism by legislators on the floor of the legislature is a welcome assertion of the need for right and parliamentary conduct by the elected representatives of the people. A crime recognised as a crime by the country’s penal laws should be treated as such even if it is committed in the legislature, but many legislators have got away with such offences in the past. Parliamentary privilege is often invoked to avoid legal scrutiny, investigation and prosecution of violent actions by legislators. Legislative privileges have not been clearly defined and codified, but it should be clear that they are only intended to protect legislators in the discharge of their legal and legitimate duties, and not to shield them from the consequences of violence on the floor of the legislature. </p>.<p>The ruling was given in a case relating to vandalism in the Kerala Assembly in 2015 by members of the Left Democratic Front (LDF), which was in the opposition then. Protesting against the presentation of the state budget by the then finance minister who was facing charges of corruption, some LDF legislators vandalised the Assembly hall, causing much damage. Cases were registered against six MLAs, one of whom is a minister now. After the LDF came to power, the government sought to withdraw the cases. But the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Thiruvananthapuram rejected the plea for withdrawal of cases and the High Court upheld the ruling. The Supreme Court ruling has come on an appeal by the government against the High Court’s decision. The apex court’s order has paved the way for continuation of the prosecution proceedings against the minister and others. The government invoked Article 194(2) which protects proceedings of the House from adverse legal action. The ruling has helped to better define the scope of the Article. </p>.<p>The Kerala government also claimed that the conduct of the MLAs was only an expression of protest derived from the right to free speech. But no stretch of the right to free speech can cover the upturning of chairs, breaking of desks and throwing of computers and mikes. The government’s argument that the court should not question the government’s power to withdraw a case is also flawed. The court has the power to examine whether the decision to withdraw a case is in good faith and well-intentioned and promotes the public interest. The court’s ruling should clear many misconceptions and wrong claims about the privileges and rights of members of legislatures, and it should be a guide for action in future cases. The prosecution of the six MLAs should also set a good example.</p>
