New Delhi: The Supreme Court takes the leaves of the House of Commons experience in the UK and non-enforcement of laws that define the contours of privileges and immunity to open a gap in the constitutional shield from prosecution of parliamentarians and MLAS for criminals to act in the house.
Judge Dy Chandrachud and Shah said, “Because Parliament has not imposed a law on parliamentary privileges issues, according to Article 194 (3) Constitution, MLA will have the privilege that members of the House of the House of Commons have at the time of the constitution.
With Thus it is important that we refer to the UK assessment of whether crimes commons in the House of Commons are covered under ‘parliamentary privileges’, receiving immunity from prosecution.
“Referring to three UK assessments on criminal acts by members of the House of Commons, Bench said: “From these cases it is proven that a person committing a criminal violation in the home area does not have the privilege.
.
“Article 105 and 194 Constitution provides the same requirements for Istimew rights A and immunity Members of Parliament and MLA.
Article 194 (2) Country: “No legislative member of a country will be responsible for any process in the court in connection with anything that is said or any voice provided by it in the legislature or any committee, and no one will thus responsibility in connection with the publication by or under the authority of the legislative house of each report, paper, sound or process.
“Bench said article 194 (2) announced the rules of immune protecting legislative members of the process in whatever court” in connection with anything It is said or the sound given “in the legislative legislature or in the legislature.
In addition, it provides a shield on any responsibility for reports publications, paper, sound or process by or under the authority of the house, he said.
The Kerala government argues that the 2015 Vandalism incident by MLA occurs on the floor of the house, and therefore, is the ‘process’ of the house.
“According to Article 194 (2), there is no legal process that can be initiated against any members in connection with publications, by or under the home authority, from each report, paper, sound or process.
Based on this, the video that records the incident is a publication From the process of the house and there is no MLA that can face legal action for these processes, “he confirmed the withdrawal of prosecution against MLA accused.
In addition, the Pinarayi Government Vijayan argues that video recordings from the incident belong to the house and a copy of video recordings cannot be obtained without speaker sanctions, which are the home keeper.
“In addition, video recordings do not have certification under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 1872.
Without video recording, there is no sufficient evidence available with prosecution to succeed in the trial accusing respondents,” he said.
SC said when the constitution was put in place, the phrase ‘publication’ was intended to mean the publication of the process in print format.
“Even though video recording from an incident broadcast on local and national news channels will fall within the scope of the word ‘publication’, it does not have the authority of the house to be recorded, and thus the members cannot be given immunity,” he said rejecting the state argument.