The Kerala government has moved the Supreme Court challenging a high court order dismissing its plea seeking withdrawal of the Assembly ruckus case of 2015. The criminal case was registered during the rule of the Congress-led United Democratic Front. The plea against the March 12 order of the Kerala High Court is scheduled to be taken up for hearing by a bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud on June 29.
The state Assembly had witnessed unprecedented scenes on March 13, 2015 as Left Democratic Front members, then in opposition, tried to prevent then finance minister KM 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 presently a minister in the state, was registered against a group of then LDF MLAs and others.
In its plea filed in the apex court, the Kerala government has claimed that the high court had failed to appreciate that the alleged incident occurred while the Assembly was in session and no crime could have been registered "without previous sanction" of the speaker.
"The First Information Report (FIR) registered by the secretary, Legislative Assembly, without the consent of the speaker is wrong and therefore, the application filed under section 321 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) is liable to be allowed," said the plea filed through advocate G Prakash.
Section 321 of the CrPC deals with withdrawal from prosecution.
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 said that the act of the accused persons was in relation to their function to protest as members of the legislative assembly, and so 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," the plea 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.
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.