No immunity for acts of vandalism: SC

No immunity for acts of vandalism: SC

Subject: Polity

Context: The Supreme Court held that lawmakers cannot indulge in criminal acts on the Parliament or Assembly floors and then take cover behind the right to free speech.

Concept :

• The SC dismissed the Kerala government’s plea seeking the court’s nod to withdraw cases against CPI(M) leaders for vandalism in the State Assembly in 2015.
• It made it clear that destruction of public property in the House cannot be equated with freedom of expression and immunity to legislators can’t be extended as immunity against criminal law.
• The bench asserted that the privileges and immunity accorded to MLAs and MPs do not mean they will enjoy immunity from criminal acts within the House and the trial court was correct in rejecting the application for withdrawal of FIR.
• These privileges bear a functional relationship to the discharge of the functions of a legislator.
• It added that privileges are not a mark of status, which allow legislators to stand on a different pedestal, and privileges are also not a gateway to claim exemption from the law.
• It said that the boundaries of lawful behaviour apply to all, including MLAs who hold responsible elected office in the Legislative Assembly. Adding that no member of an elected legislature can claim either a privilege or an immunity to stand above the sanctions of the criminal law, which applies equally to all citizens.
• The court explained that the purpose of bestowing privileges and immunities to elected members of the legislature was to enable them to perform their “essential functions” without hindrance, fear or favour.

Parliamentary Privileges

• Parliamentary privilege refers to rights and immunities enjoyed by Parliament as an institution and MPs in their individual capacity, without which they cannot discharge their functions as entrusted upon them by the Constitution.
• According to the Constitution, the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament and MP’s are to be defined by Parliament(Art 105) & Art 194 – State legislature. No law has so far been enacted in this respect.
• In the absence of any such law, it continues to be governed by British Parliamentary conventions.
• Abreach of privilege is a violation of any of the privileges of MPs/Parliament. Among other things, any action ‘casting reflections’ on MPs, parliament or its committees; could be considered breach of privilege.
• A notice is moved in the form of a motion by any member of either House against those being held guilty of breach of privilege
• The Speaker/Chairperson can decide on the privilege motion himself or herself or refer it to the privileges committee of Parliament.
• If the Speaker/Chair gives consent under Rule 222, the member concerned is given an opportunity to make a short statement.