The judgment in The State of Kerala versus K Ajith stands out as a clear reminder that legislative privilege cannot be converted into personal immunity, and political protest cannot be used as a mask for unlawful behaviour.
Justice D Y Chandrachud’s opinion reads like a firm constitutional response to an attempt to escape ordinary criminal accountability.
Factual Background
On 13 March 2015 the Kerala Legislative Assembly was in session for the presentation of the annual budget.
What should have been a solemn constitutional exercise instead turned chaotic. Opposition MLAs stormed the Speaker’s dais while the Finance Minister was presenting the budget.
They toppled furniture, damaged the Speaker’s chair, smashed electronic equipment and brought the proceedings to a standstill.
The damage was assessed at more than two lakh rupees. The Legislative Secretary reported the matter to the police, leading to registration of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
There was no factual dispute. The incident was recorded on CCTV cameras inside the Assembly hall. A charge sheet was filed after investigation and cognizance was taken.
The Controversial Attempt to Withdraw Prosecution
In 2018 the Public Prosecutor filed an application under section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to withdraw the case.
The reasons offered included claims that the conduct of the MLAs was part of a political protest, that the actions were protected by legislative privileges, that the Speaker’s permission ought to have been taken before even registering the crime, and that continuing the prosecution would somehow lower the dignity of the Assembly.
It was also said that the evidence might be weak and that public interest required closure of the matter.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the request. The Kerala High Court affirmed the decision. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
The Heart of the Case
The central issue was whether MLAs can claim legislative privilege to avoid criminal prosecution for acts of violence and destruction committed inside the Assembly hall.
To answer this, the Court examined the scope of section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the meaning of legislative privilege under Article 194 of the Constitution.
What the Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court refused to permit withdrawal of the prosecution. The Court insisted on principles that every lawyer recognises as foundational.
First, a Public Prosecutor cannot act as a mere agent of the government. The Prosecutor must apply an independent mind before seeking withdrawal. The court must be satisfied that the request is made in good faith and not for reasons of political convenience or to shield individuals from accountability.
Second, the Court held that legislative privilege protects speech and voting inside the House. It does not protect acts of physical violence or destruction of public property. To accept the claim of privilege in such a situation would mean that the House becomes a space where criminal law stops at the door. The Court called this an unacceptable and dangerous interpretation.
Third, the Court clarified that no provision in the Constitution or in the rules of the Kerala Assembly requires the police to obtain the Speaker’s permission to register a crime for acts committed inside the Assembly. Privilege cannot stretch so far that it prevents even the basic operation of criminal law.
Fourth, the Court emphasised that public property belongs to the people. Damaging it cannot be excused on the theory of political protest. The argument that prosecution would reduce the dignity of the Assembly was firmly rejected. In fact, the Court observed that allowing elected representatives to escape trial for such conduct would itself undermine democratic dignity.
A Message Beyond the Case
The judgment sends a clear constitutional message. Legislatures are vital to democracy, but they are not islands where the rule of law cannot enter.
Privilege exists to protect free debate and voting, not to create a sanctuary for unlawful behaviour. Political protest is a part of democratic life, but it cannot include violence or destruction of public property.
In simple terms, the Court upheld a principle that forms the backbone of constitutional democracy. No office, however important, places a person above the law.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
