New Delhi: The Supreme Court on
Monday said it has to take a “strict” view of unruly behaviour of lawmakers in
Parliament and Legislative Assemblies as such incidents are “increasing
now-a-days” and this sort of conduct cannot be condoned.
The top court, which was hearing pleas relating to a criminal
case lodged in connection with ruckus inside Kerala Assembly in 2015 during the
previous Congress-led UDF rule, said it must be ensured that decorum is
maintained in the House.
“Prima facie, we have to take a very strict view on this kind
of behaviour. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable,” a bench of Justices DY
Chandrachud and M R Shah said while referring to the incident in Kerala
Assembly.
“We must ensure that some decorum is maintained. These are
sentinels of democracy,” the bench said, adding, “Such type of incidents are
increasing now a days. In the parliament also, it is happening and one has to
be strict on this”.
One of the pleas was filed by the Kerala government which has
challenged the March 12 order of the high court dismissing its petition seeking
withdrawal of a criminal case registered in connection with the ruckus inside
the state Assembly in 2015.
The state assembly had witnessed unprecedented scenes on
March 13, 2015 as LDF members, then in opposition, tried to prevent then
finance minister K M Mani, who was facing allegations in the bar bribery scam,
from presenting the state budget.
Besides flinging the speaker's chair from the podium,
electronic equipment like computers, keyboards and mikes on the desk of the
presiding officer were also allegedly damaged by the LDF members.
The case, which also involves V Sivankutty who is a minister
in the state, was registered against a group of then LDF MLAs and others.
During the hearing conducted on Monday through video-conferencing,
the top court referred to the incident in the Kerala Assembly and observed that
the MLAs had obstructed presentation of finance budget and such behaviour
cannot be accepted.
“We will not condone this kind of behaviour of MLAs who, on
the floor of the house, throw mikes and destroys public property,” said the
bench, which posted the matter for hearing on July 15.
“They were MLAs and they were representing people,” the bench
said, adding, “What message are they giving to the public”.
One has to take strict view on such conduct otherwise there
would be no deterrence to this kind of behaviour, it said, adding that those
involved in such behaviour should face trial under the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act.
“This kind of behaviour cannot be condoned,” it said, adding,
“What is the larger public interest in shielding an MLA who was obstructing
presentation of finance budget in the House.”
When one of the counsel said the MLAs were protesting against
the then finance minister against whom there were corruption allegations, the
bench said irrespective of that, “presentation of finance budget is of utmost
importance”.
On the issue of application under section 321 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure which deals with withdrawal from prosecution, the bench
observed that it is the prerogative of the public prosecutor.
In its plea filed in the top court, the Kerala government has
claimed that high court had failed to appreciate that the alleged incident had
occurred while the Assembly was in session and no crime could have been
registered “without previous sanction” of the speaker.
“The FIR registered by the secretary Legislative Assembly
without the consent of the speaker is wrong and therefore, the application
filed under section 321 CrPC is liable to be allowed,” said the plea filed by
the state.
The plea has sought a stay on the March 12 order of the high
court and also on further proceedings in the case, which is pending before a
trial court.
It has said because the act of accused persons being in relation
to their function to protest as members of the legislative assembly, the MLAs,
who are accused in the FIR, were entitled to get protection under the
Constitution.
It said that Article 105(3), 194(3) of the Constitution of
India confers certain privileges and immunities to the members of Parliament
and state legislature and therefore, it was not proper for the secretary of the
Legislative Assembly to file cases against MLAs with regard to an incident
which happened on the floor of House during the protest made by opposition
members, that too, without the consent of the speaker.
“The allegation in the present case has admittedly happened
during the budget session of the Legislature as a part of the protest by
opposition members of Legislative Assembly against the budget presentation by
the then finance minister due to the then prevailing political reasons,” it
said.
The state government had moved the high court against an
order of the trial court which had dismissed an application filed by the public
prosecutor seeking permission to withdraw from prosecution against the accused
in the case.
In its plea filed in the top court, the state has said there
was no evidence to show that the application submitted by the public prosecutor
was “not in good faith”.
The case was registered for the alleged offences under
various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 447 (criminal
trespass), and under the provision of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act.
___________