The Pinarayi Vijayan-led Left Democratic Front Government (LDF) defended the indefensible, and got it in the neck. In the first instance, it should not have moved the apex court to withdraw the prosecution of top LDF leaders accused of wanton destruction of public property and vandalism on the floor of the State Assembly during the budget session in 2015.

The Government could have avoided the acute embarrassment caused by the ‘Supreme” snub had it listened to the voices of reason. The Government went ahead with the appeal despite the warning from the legal department that the appeal would not stand legal scrutiny. It had three opportunities to course correct. The Government could have – and should have - avoided appealing to the Kerala High Court when the trial court in Thuiruvananthapuram dismissed its appeal against prosecution. It did not back out, and approached the highest court in the country only be administered a severe reprimand. And the result is there for all to see: Loss of face and a big dent in its image.

The Government and the accused LDF leaders, including present Education Minister V Sivankuty who were in the opposition in 2015, had argued that the incident occurred inside the Assembly and therefore they were entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution! They also contended that the registration of the case was done without the ‘mandatory’ prior permission of the Speaker. The SC rejected it saying that there was no need for the Speaker’s prior sanction as it was not a corruption case.

The court rightly held that lawmakers cannot resort to criminal activities on Parliament or Assembly floors and take refuge behind the right to free speech! “Acts of vandalism cannot be said to be manifestations of freedom of speech and be termed as ‘proceedings’ of the Assembly. It was not the intention of the drafters of the Constitution to extend the interpretation of ‘freedom of speech’ to include criminal acts by placing them under a veil of protest,” a Bench of Justices of D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah held in a 74-page judgment. Parliamentary privileges and immunities are not, the apex court held, ‘gateways’ for legislators to claim exception from the law of the land , especially criminal law, said Justice Chandrachud, who authored the judgment.

The LDF MLAs are facing charges of criminal trespass, mischief and destruction of public property. The MLAs were seen hurling chairs, computers and other public property and coming to blows after the then Finance Minister K M man I began his budget speech during the United Democratic Front (UDF) Government’s tenure.

A jubilant Opposition grabbed the chance to put the government on the mat with both hands. Leader of the Opposition V D Satheesan lit into the Government, saying parliamentary privileges were meant only for debating and voting on issues without fear or favour. They do not cover criminal acts, he pointed out. March 13, 2015 will go down in Kerala’s legislative history as a black Friday. He accused the Government of willfully preventing KM Mani from presenting the budget on a charge of corruption pertaining to the reinstatement of cancelled bar licences.

The Chief Minister, however, rejected the opposition’s demand for the resignation of Education Minister V Sivankutty, who is one of the accused in the case. There was no need for Sivankutty to quit as the SC has not made any adverse remarks against him. Nor has it mentioned Sivankutty by name, the Chief Minister pointed out. Turmoils in the society often reflected in the Assembly, the CM said, adding that the UDF set a wrong precedent by filing a case for criminal prosecution. The matter should have been settled in the Assembly itself. In support of his argument, Pinarayi said the Speaker had suspended the LDF MLAs who had caused the ruckus. The matter should have ended there.

Further prosecution, as sought by the UDF, would amount to double punishment for a crime, he contended. The UDF Government, however, thought otherwise, and unnecessarily pushed a political protest in the Assembly into the realm of criminal prosecution. The incident in the Kerala Assembly was not the first of its kind. Similar incidents had occurred in other Assemblies in the country as well. But No Government had ‘trapped’ MLAs in criminal cases. They had allowed the Speaker to have the last word in the matter.

With the SC asking the legislators to stand trial in the case, the scene now shifts to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Thiruvananthapuram, which had rejected the plea for withdrawing criminal prosecution against the LDF MLAs. If the discharge petitions are rejected, the MLAs will be tried for offences of trespass(Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, which comes with a fine of Rs 500 and simple imprisonment up to three years), causing mischief (Section 427, two years of imprisonment with fine or both) and mischief causing damage to public property (Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 imprisonment up to five years and a fine amount equal to the value of the damage caused to public property). Of course, the MLAs can go for a revision petition in the High Court and the Supreme Court against the decision of the CJM court in the discharge petition. In other words, another protracted legal battle is in the offing.

Whatever the denouement, the reopening of the case has caused a dent in the image of the LDF Government. It is a matter of concern that Government has failed to learn from past mistakes and keep repeating them. The LDF Government should address this issue with utmost seriousness to avoid recurrence of such lapses in the future. The tendency to pursue cases which cannot stand legal scrutiny and court controversies unnecessarily must be ended, once for all. This is of paramount importance to avert self-goals and further damage to the Government’s image. (IPA Service)