ForumIAS LATEST
- 04 June | MGP Strategy Series | GS Paper 4 (Ethics) with AIR 7 A.R. Rajah Mohaideen Click Here to register for the session →
- 04 June | GS Advance Program begins from 4th June 2026 | First 2 classes open to all Click Here to register for the event →
- 05 June | MGP Strategy Series | GS Paper 3 Strategy Session with AIR 406 Mannat Luthra Click Here to register for the session
- 06 June | Open Orientation on Essay Guidance Program (EGP 2026) Click Here to register →
- 07 June | Open Orientation for Current Affairs for Mains 2026 Click Here to register →
- 07 June | Sociology Optional Strategy Session with AIR 10 Ujjwal Priyank Click Here to register →
Contents
Synopsis:
The Supreme Court held that a legislative privilege cannot be extended to provide legal immunity to criminal acts committed by lawmakers.
Background:
- On March 13, 2015, six members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) from LDF party in Kerala tried to interrupt the presentation of the Budget. Their action resulted in destruction or damage to some items, amounting to a loss of Rs. 2.20 lakh.
- Based on the Assembly Secretary’s complaint, the police registered a case and later filed a charge sheet against them.
About the case:
- The MLAs were booked for committing mischief and trespass under the IPC and destroying public property under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
- This year, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, had rejected the application by the public prosecutor for withdrawal of the prosecution case. This order was affirmed by the Kerala HC. Later, the Supreme Court also concurred with this decision.
About the Supreme Court Directive:
- A legislative privilege can not provide legal immunity to criminal acts of lawmakers.
- This ruling by Supreme Court is a step in the right direction, because,
- It is an unacceptable argument that the alleged vandalism took place as part of the legislators’ right to protest on the floor of the House.
- An alleged act of destroying public property within the House cannot be considered “essential” for their legislative functions.
- It is the court’s duty to decide whether the prosecutor’s withdrawal is in good faith and in the interest of public policy. Further, the withdrawal shouldn’t aim at thwarting the process of law.
