Case Title: The State Of Kerala v. K Ajith And Ors
The Supreme Court made several key judgments on the scope of parliamentary privileges and immunities while refusing to allow the withdrawal of criminal prosecution against six LDF members in the Kerala assembly ruckus case of 2015.
The State of Kerala and the accused had contended that the criminal prosecution of members for acts performed on the floor of the parliament was unsustainable because they are protected by legislative privileges under Article 194 of the Constitution.
Rejecting this argument, a division bench comprised of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah stated that legislative privileges cannot be invoked to avoid the application of criminal law.
In this regard, Justice DY Chandrachud's decision traced the history of legislative privileges to the House of Commons and noted that "a standout feature which emerges from the privileges and immunities of the members of the House of Commons is the absence of immunity from the application of criminal law."
The judgement described the aim of legislative privileges as follows, observing that there is a valid justification for this position:
"The goal of placing privileges and immunities on elected members of the legislature is to allow them to carry out their duties without interference, fear, or favour.
The Constitution acknowledges privileges and immunities to create an atmosphere in which they can freely execute their activities and discharge their duties. These privileges are functionally related to the performance of legislative functions. They are not a prestige symbol that elevates politicians to an unequal pedestal."
The Court noted that Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution, which deal with the privileges of members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, respectively, stipulate that "freedom of speech and expression" is guaranteed in the legislature. The Court emphasised that this freedom of speech is provided to ensure that elected officials can carry out their tasks as per the trust put in them by the people.
The Court observed:
"Privileges and immunities are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general law of the land, particularly as in this case, the criminal law which governs the action of every citizen. To claim an exemption from the application of criminal law would be to betray the trust which is impressed on the character of elected representatives as the makers and enactors of the law."