NDLI: The State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Withdrawal of prosecution Registration of criminal case at the behest of the Legislative Secretary Section 321 CrPC
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 321 – Withdrawal of prosecution – Respondents-MLAs allegedly disrupted the presentation of the budget by climbing on to the dais of the Speaker and damaging furniture and articles causing huge loss – Registration of criminal case at the behest of the Legislative Secretary u/ss. 447 and 427 r/w s. 34 IPC and s. 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Cognizance taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate-CJM upon submission of the final report u/s 173 CrPC – Application u/s 321 by the public prosecutor seeking sanction to withdraw the case against the respondents – CJM declined to grant permission to the public prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution of the respondents u/s. 321 – High Court upheld the order – On appeal, held: Privileges and immunities are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general law of the land, particularly, 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 elected representatives as the makers and enactors of the law – Withdrawal application is based on a fundamental misconception of the constitutional provisions contained in Art. 194 – Alleged act of destruction of public property within the House by the members to lodge their protest against the presentation of the budget cannot be regarded as essential for exercising their legislative functions, nor can be equated with the freedom of speech in the legislature, thus, not covered by the privileges guaranteed under the Constitution – Allowing the prosecution to be withdrawn would only show that the elected representatives are exempt from the mandate of criminal law – Thus, the orders passed by the CJM and the High Court are upheld – Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. s. 321 – Withdrawal of prosecution – Exercise of power by the Public Prosecutor u/s. 321 – Exercise of jurisdiction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate – General principles – Formulation of. s. 321 – Matter pertaining to declining of application for withdrawal made by the public prosecutor u/s. 321 CrPC by Chief Judicial Magistrate and the High Court – Plea that the video recording of the incident was procured from the Electronic Record Room of Assembly without the permission of the Speaker; and that the video recording lacks the certification required for admissibility of evidence – Held: Questions of admissibility of evidence, absent certifications etc., are to be adjudged by the trial court during the stage of trial – It is not the duty of this Court, in an application u/s. 321 to adjudicate upon evidentiary issues and examine the admissibility or sufficiency of evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 65B. s. 197(1) – Sanction of speaker for prosecution against accused-MLAs – Requirement of – Held: No provisions warranting the sanction of the speaker to initiate criminal prosecution either specific to offence or specific to class – Thus, on facts, prosecution against accused not vitiated for want of sanction. Constitution of India: Arts. 105 and 194 – Privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament and MLAs – Interpretation – Scope of – Explained. Art. 194 – Powers, privileges, etc, of the House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof – Parliamentary proceedings – Immunity from publication of proceedings of the House – Held: Parliamentary proceedings does not include all activities inside the house – It is only limited to essential functions of members in their official capacity for participation and deliberation in the house – Act of destruction and vandalism not manifestation of freedom of speech and cannot be termed as proceedings of the assembly – Thus, video recording of the incident was not a “proceeding” of the Assembly, which would be protected from legal proceedings u/Art.194(2). Art. 136 – Jurisdiction under – Exercise of – Matter pertaining to declining of application for withdrawal made by the public prosecutor u/s. 321 CrPC by Chief Judicial Magistrate and the High Court – Interference with – Held: Court not to embark upon a roving enquiry into the facts and evidence of case like this – Interference warranted when findings suffer from a palpable error or perversity. Parliamentary privileges: Nature of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by members of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom – Evolution of, through various phases – Jurisprudential development – Discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 366
Petitioner	The State Of Kerala
Respondent	K. Ajith & Ors.
SCR	[2021] 6 S.C.R. 774
Judgement Date	2021-07-28
Case Number	697

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

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

Please Log-in to view this content

Bairam Muralidhar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Mohd. Mumtaz Vs. Nandini Satpathy and Ors.

State of Karnataka Vs. K. H. Annegowda & Anr.

Abdul Wahab K. Vs. State of Kerala and Others

State of U.p. Vs. Ram Bahadur Singh and Ors.

Abdul Karim Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

State of Orissa Vs. Chandrika Mohapatra & Ors.

The State of Bihar Vs. Ram Naresh Pandey

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

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

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Bairam Muralidhar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Mohd. Mumtaz Vs. Nandini Satpathy and Ors.

State of Karnataka Vs. K. H. Annegowda & Anr.

Abdul Wahab K. Vs. State of Kerala and Others

State of U.p. Vs. Ram Bahadur Singh and Ors.

Abdul Karim Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

State of Orissa Vs. Chandrika Mohapatra & Ors.

The State of Bihar Vs. Ram Naresh Pandey

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