 leaders, including Kerala Education Minister V. Sivankutty, for vandalism inside the state Assembly in 2015, when the current regime was not in power.){kind=link}
The Supreme Court on Monday heard the plea by the Kerala government seeking directions to withdraw cases against 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.
The bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah made the remark that, “MLAs obstructed the financial budget which was being laid down in the State Assembly.” The bench further said, “We cannot condone the behaviour of this kind of MLA who throws mic and destroys public property while a bill is being laid.” And added, “What is the larger public interest in shielding an MLA who created a ruckus while a financial bill was being laid? The presentation of finance bill is of utmost importance.” Then the bench said, “We have not issued notice. It is not a final hearing.”
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, who was defending the Kerala MLA, requested the court to adjourn the hearing for another date. The bench accepted the prayer and kept the matter for hearing on July 15.
On June 29, the matter came up for hearing before the three-judge of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, R. Subhash Reddy and S. Ravindra Bhat. The Court was informed by Senior Counsel Jaideep Gupta that they have filed an SLP on behalf of the accused. The Court has tagged along the SLP with the main matter filed by the State Government and list the matter for hearing on Monday, July 5, 2021.
Also Read: Supreme Court asks petitioners to move Allahabad HC for independent probe into police brutality
Earlier, the Kerala High Court while dismissing the state government plea said, “Here the allegation is of the functioning of the 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 MLAs had vandalised the Speaker’s dais, uprooted his chair, pulled out mike system, computer etc.
The special leave petition filed by the state government said: “When Article 105(3), 194(3) of the Constitution of India confers certain privileges and immunities to the members of the Parliament and State Legislature, is it proper for the Secretary of Legislative Assembly to file cases against the MLAs with regard to an incident that happened on the floor of the House during the protest made by the opposition members, that too without the consent of the Speaker of the Assembly?”