The State of Kerala Vs K. Ajith & Ors. 2021

CASE BRIEFING: The State of Kerala Vs K. Ajith & Ors. 2021

Case Title and Citation

The State of Kerala versus K. Ajith & Ors. Criminal Appeal No 697 of 2021 @ SLP (Crl) No 4009 of 2021 (and connected matters).

Factual Background

The appeals arose from a judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala upholding the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s (CJM) order which refused permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The underlying incident occurred on March 13, 2015, in the Kerala Legislative Assembly while the then Finance Minister was presenting the budget. The respondent-accused, who were Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) belonging to the opposition party, allegedly disrupted the presentation, climbed onto the Speaker’s dais, and damaged various public properties, including the Speaker’s chair, computer, mike, emergency lamp, and electronic panel, causing a loss of Rs. 2,20,093/-. A crime (Crime No. 236 of 2015) was registered for offenses under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984.

In 2018, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application for withdrawal, citing reasons such as the actions being protected by immunities and privileges under Article 194(3), the matter being a breach of privilege under the Speaker’s exclusive jurisdiction, the lack of prior sanction from the Speaker to register the offense, and that withdrawal would serve the larger public interest. The CJM and the High Court subsequently rejected the withdrawal application.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Public Prosecutor’s application under Section 321 of the CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution against MLAs accused of destroying public property was proper and made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice.
2. Whether the alleged criminal acts (destruction of public property) committed by MLAs inside the Legislative Assembly are protected by the constitutional immunities and privileges granted under Article 194 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the prior sanction of the Speaker of the House is mandatory for initiating criminal proceedings against MLAs for offenses committed within the precincts of the Assembly.
4. Whether the video recording of the incident was inadmissible evidence due to lack of Speaker sanction or certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether this forms a valid ground for withdrawal under Section 321 CrPC.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the respondent-accused. The Court held that the CJM was justified in declining consent for the withdrawal of the prosecution under Section 321 CrPC.

Reason for the decision

The Court’s reasoning hinged on the principle that legislative privilege cannot be used as a shield against criminal liability:

1. Scope of Section 321 CrPC: The Court’s role in a Section 321 application is supervisory, ensuring the Public Prosecutor’s function has not been improperly exercised for “illegitimate reasons or purposes”. The application must be made in good faith and serve the administration of justice.
2. No Privilege for Criminal Acts: The core foundation of the withdrawal application was based on a “fundamental misconception of the constitutional provisions contained in Article 194”. Privileges are intended to allow legislators to perform their functions without hindrance; they bear a functional relationship to the discharge of legislative duties. They are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general law of the land, particularly criminal law.
3. Vandalism is not Protected Speech: The alleged act of destruction of public property cannot be equated with the freedom of speech or legitimate forms of protest. Vandalism is not covered by the privileges guaranteed under the Constitution. Allowing withdrawal would suggest that elected representatives are exempt from the criminal law mandate, which is contrary to the broad ends of public justice and betrays public trust.
4. Speaker Sanction Not Required: The argument that prior sanction from the Speaker was required was rejected. The precedent requiring sanction in P.V. Narasimha Rao was specific to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since MLAs cannot be removed from office by or with the sanction of the Government, Section 197 of the CrPC (requiring sanction for prosecution of certain public servants) does not apply to them.
5. Admissibility of Evidence: Arguments concerning the inadequacy or inadmissibility of evidence (such as the lack of Section 65B certification for the video recording) are questions for the trial court to adjudicate during trial, not for the Supreme Court to assess during the review of a Section 321 application.
6. “Proceedings” Under Article 194(2): The criminal acts committed cannot be termed a “proceeding” of the Assembly protected by immunity. The term “proceedings” refers to actions taken by members in their official capacity, such as reports, papers, and votes, for the purpose of deliberation and decision-making (the essential function of the House). Moreover, since internal Assembly rules denied permission to record “interruption/disorder,” the recording of the incident was not a publication “under the authority of the House,” thereby denying the claim of immunity under Article 194(2).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of the lower courts to allow the withdrawal of prosecution, holding that the State Legislature members, like all citizens, are subject to criminal law. To allow withdrawal would have undermined the administration of justice and constitutional principles by providing elected representatives immunity for criminal acts committed in the guise of political protest.