The Supreme Court has reserved its judgement on a petition filed by the Kerala government, seeking directions to withdraw cases against six CPI(M) leaders, including Kerala Education Minister V. Sivankutty for vandalism inside the state Assembly in 2015, when the current regime was not in power.
A bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah heard Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta on behalf of the accused and Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani on behalf of Ajith Kumar (Intervenor).
Earlier, the Kerala High Court, while dismissing the state government plea, had said, “Here the allegation is of the functioning of Assembly Session having been disrupted by the members by trespassing into the Speaker’s dais and committing mischief. The aforementioned acts, if proven to be true, can by no stretch of imagination, be deemed to be acts done in furtherance of the free functioning of the House.”
The bench heard Ranjit Kumar arguing for the withdrawal of prosecution on behalf of the state, however upon instance of Justice Shah, it was noted that the Senior Counsel was perhaps defending the accused, which should not be the role of the state.
However, the Senior Counsel went on to elaborate his arguments to prove whether the actions of the MLA were performed in the public interest or not. Mr Kumar stated that in the said ruckus, members of both the parties were equally involved and in furtherance, the property of the Assembly was destroyed. It was further stated that an FIR was registered on instance of a lady member of the then government, who got hurt during the incident.
Justice Chandrachud, in turn, exclaimed that arguments happen in courtroom as well in a charged atmosphere, but that does not explain the damage to public property or anything done in the public interest.
Mr Kumar stated that the government of the day thought that this should not go ahead, there are FIRs from both sides, and to quit this, the state wanted to take back the prosecution, as this was a case of political manifestation.
He further argued that the act was covered under the House rules, that is, Legislative privileges. The authority to take actions pertaining to conduct in the House vests with the Speaker and once the action against the accused has been taken, then a criminal prosecution can be sought.
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the accused, argued that if the public prosecutor believes that it is a political issue and needs no trial at this time, there is lot of politics going around this time, including on the involvement of media, in the light of this whether the administration of justice is fine or not is the question.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the intervenor, argued that the protection of Legislative privileges cannot be claimed for vandalism committed within the House.
“Is the privilege claim that the House members have the right to destroy public property, abuse the Speaker and destroy his chair? Is that the privilege claimed? Are such activities adjuncts of free speech? In my respectful submissions, neither such a privilege can be claimed, nor such acts are adjuncts of free speech,” he submitted.
He further argued that withdrawal application was against the objectives of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act.
The apex court has reserved judgement in the case. Six members of CPI(M) were booked under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act for vandalism in the House. Out of the accused, V Sivankutty is now Education Minister in the present second term of the LDF government. The other accused include EP Jayarajan and KT Jaleel, who were Ministers in the previous LDF government, besides CK Sahadevan, K Ajith and K Kunhammed.