oppn parties No Immunity For Legislators For Criminal Acts In House

News Snippets

  • Uttarakhand HC says marital discord, suspicion and quarrels cannot be held to be abetment of suicide
  • Two sisters, both brides-to-be, died by suspected suicide in Jodhpur. No suicide note was found
  • RTI reveals that 200 big cats were poached in India between 2005 and 2025, with the most in MP
  • After the US Supreme Court order on tariffs, Centre has put Indian trade team's US visit on hold
  • Delhi Police bust terror module linked to Lashkar that was plotting to strike in Delhi. Arrest 7 Bangladeshis with Aadhar IDs
  • PM Modi announced in his Mann Ki Baat that Edwin Lutyens' statue will be replaced with that of C Rajagopalchari at the Rashtrapati Bhawan
  • Facial recognition at Digi Yatra gates in Kolkata Airport suffered prolonged glitch on Sunday, forcing passengers to wait in long queues
  • Ranji Final: Strong Karnataka take on rising J&K in the match starting from Tuesday
  • Rising Stars women's cricket: India 'A' beat Bangladesh by 46 runs to capture title
  • Super 8s: Co-hosts Sri Lanka lose too, England beat them by 51 runs
  • Super 8s: South Africa crush India by 76 runs as nothing goes right for the hosts
  • PM Modi inaugurates India's fastest metro in Meerut and the first Vande Bharat sleeper in Bengal, This sleeper will cover Howrah to Guwahati route
  • After his consecutive failures, Abhishek Sharma has created a problem for the team management: should they give him one more chance in a vital match today or go for Sanju Samson as opener
  • A Pocso court in Prayagraj ordered an FIR against Swami Avi Mukteshawaranand and his disciple Muktanand Giri for molesting underage boys in their Magh Mela camp
  • TOI reported that while private universities filed more patents, elite institutions like IIT and IISc got more approvals between 2020-2025
T20 World Cup Super 8s: India get a reality check, outplayed by South Africa in their first match, end 12-match winning streak
oppn parties
No Immunity For Legislators For Criminal Acts In House

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-07-29 06:45:24

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that it would be wrong to focus just on the rights of the elected representatives and ignore the corresponding duties cast upon them and hence, the privileges and immunity granted to them could not act as a shield against criminal acts carried out in the House. The court said that "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".

The case before the apex court was a plea by Kerala that sought to quash a case against several MLAs of the LDF who had vandalized property in the state assembly while protesting against the budget presented by the UDF government in 2015. The cost of the damaged property was ascertained to be Rs 2,20,093. The court said that the withdrawal of prosecution against the MLAs "would amount to an interference with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons. Such an action is clearly extraneous to the vindication of the law to which all organs of the executive are bound".

Making a clear distinction between the privileges and immunity granted to legislators under the Constitution and the criminal acts of vandalism inside assemblies or Parliament, the court was of the opinion that the privileges granted to legislators were only "to enable them to perform their functions without interference, fear or favour". But that does not mean that they are privileged to vandalize public property under the garb of protest. The court also categorically stated that "privileges and immunities are not gateways (for MPs/MLAs) to claim exemption from the general law of the land".

MLAs and MPs sometimes behave inappropriately inside assemblies and Parliament. Apart from abusing each other and indulging in scuffles, they also damage public property by breaking mikes, throwing chairs, upturning tables and destroying other property on the premises. Apart from setting a wrong example (which the apex court said was to "betray the trust which is impressed on the character of elected representatives as makers and enactors of the law"), such damage also involves a monetary cost that needs to be made good by them. The Supreme Court is right in holding them accountable, just like any ordinary citizens, for criminal acts inside the House.