Shivangi Prakash –
The Kerala High Court denied the state government plea seeking for the dismissal of a criminal case filed in relation to the ruckus in the Assembly during the former Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government in 2015.
On March 13, 2015, the state Assembly saw extraordinary scenes as LDF members, who were then in opposition, attempted to prevent Mani, who was facing criminal charges in the bar bribery scandal, from presenting the state budget.
A single bench of Justice V J Arun rejected the plea, saying that dismissing the case regarding the behaviour of politicians in the House could not be justified, and it is the responsibility of the representative to maintain the order. The court ordered that all those charged will face legal proceedings.
The argument that the accused were entitled to legislative privileges protection was also rejected by the High Court, which stated that the alleged crimes were not “Acts done in furtherance of the free functioning of the house.”
The court also ruled that the accused, who were members of the assembly, were not entitled to the house privilege.
According to the court, the lower court had denied the plea for withdrawal of prosecution for valid and reasonable reasons.
As per a government official, the high court’s decision will be contested at the Supreme Court of India.
A Special Leave Petition has been filed by the state of Kerala in the Supreme Court for the removal of criminal charges against six prominent CPI (M) members for causing a disturbance and vandalism in the Kerala Legislative Assembly in 2015.
According to the Kerala Government’s petition to the Supreme Court, the acts that occurred during a protest held against the introduction of the budget by then-Finance Minister KM Mani, who was facing suspicions of involvement in a bar-bribery fraud.
Along with that, it has also been argued that the High Court, failed to acknowledge that the alleged crimes occurred while the legislature was in session, and hence no FIR could have been filed without the Speaker’s permission. It is claimed that the FIR was registered by the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly without the Speaker’s authorization.