The State of Kerala v. K. Ajith (2021)

Introduction 

This case addresses the fundamental question of whether Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) can claim immunity from criminal prosecution under Article 194 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) for acts involving destruction of public property committed during legislative proceedings.  

• The core issue was the balance between legislative privileges and accountability under criminal law, specifically examining when courts can refuse a prosecutor's request to withdraw criminal cases under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

Facts 

• On 13th March 2015, during the presentation of the budget by the Kerala Finance Minister in the Kerala Legislative Assembly, six opposition party MLAs (defendants) created a disturbance by climbing over to the Speaker's dais. 
• The MLAs damaged various items including the director's chair, computer, microphone, electronic panel, and emergency lamp, causing damages estimated at Rs. 2,20,093. 
• A criminal case was registered against the defendants under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (common intention), along with Sections 447 (criminal trespass) and 427 (mischief causing damage) of the IPC, and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 
• The final report (chargesheet) was filed and cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ernakulam. 
• On 21st July 2018, the Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 321 of the CrPC requesting withdrawal of the case against all defendants, claiming their actions were protected by immunities and privileges under Article 194(3) of the Constitution. 
• The case was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram CJM Court, which by order dated 22 September 2020, refused to approve the Prosecutor's application for withdrawal. 
• The State of Kerala filed a criminal revision petition before the Kerala High Court seeking reconsideration of the CJM's rejection, but on 12 March 2021, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the CJM's decision. 
• Subsequently, both the State of Kerala and the Respondents filed separate Special Leave Petitions to the Supreme Court. 

Issues 

• Whether courts can refuse a prosecution's request to withdraw a case under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
• Whether the immunity and privileges of Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) under Article 194 of the Indian Constitution extends to destruction of public property. 
• Whether acts of destruction committed by MLAs during legislative sessions constitute "proceedings" of the Assembly protected under Article 194(2). 
• Whether video recordings of legislative proceedings can be admitted as evidence without the Speaker's sanction. 

Court's Observations 

Withdrawal of Prosecution under Section 321 of CrPC: 

• The Court held that the power to allow withdrawal under Section 321 is similar to the power under Section 320 to compound an offence, with the court's role being limited to overseeing and supervising. 
• While Section 321 doesn't explicitly outline grounds for withdrawal, acceptable reasons include public policy considerations, administrative interests, impracticality in continuing prosecution, and lack of evidence. 
• The court must verify whether the Prosecutor has justified withdrawal on legitimate grounds, assess if the application was filed in good faith, and ensure withdrawal doesn't interfere with the legal process. 

Legislative Privileges and Criminal Law: 

• The Court reiterated that Members of legislature, despite their right to protest and freedom of speech under Articles 105(1) and 194(1), are not above criminal law. 
• Legislative privileges do not exempt MLAs from prosecution for actions constituting criminal offences, particularly destruction of public property. 
• Acts of destruction on the legislative floor are not protected under legislative privileges and must remain subject to criminal law. 
• The ruckus in the Assembly was not considered a "proceeding" of the Assembly that would attract protection under Article 194(2). 

Public Justice and Accountability: 

• The Court emphasized that granting withdrawal would undermine public justice and the principle that elected officials are accountable under the law. 
• The Public Prosecutor's application for withdrawal was based on a misconception of constitutional provisions and was rightly denied. 
• The CJM was correct in refusing consent to withdrawal of prosecution, as acts of destruction cannot be shielded by legislative immunity. 

Inadmissibility of Video Recording as Evidence: 

• The Court clarified that in applications under Section 321 of CrPC, courts are not obliged to determine questions of evidence or examine admissibility or sufficiency of evidence. 
• The Prosecutor's argument about video recording requiring Speaker's sanction was deemed irrelevant for the withdrawal application, as the court need not examine evidence at this stage. 

Doctrine of No Immunity for Criminal Acts: 

• The Court established that legislative privileges are meant to protect legitimate parliamentary functions, not criminal activities. 
• Destruction of public property, even if committed within legislative premises, falls outside the scope of constitutional immunity. 
• The principle that no one is above the law applies equally to elected representatives, ensuring democratic accountability. 

Balance Between Legislative Freedom and Rule of Law: 

• The Court struck a balance by recognizing legitimate legislative privileges while firmly establishing that such privileges cannot extend to cover criminal acts. 
• The decision reinforced that legislative immunity exists to protect democratic discourse, not to provide blanket protection for unlawful conduct.