DR.DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. - (1.) This judgment has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis: A. Factual Background B. Submissions of Parties C. Issues and Analysis C.1 Withdrawal of prosecution C.2 Immunities and Privileges of MLAs C.2.1 Position in the United Kingdom C.2.2 Position in India C.3 Privilege to commit acts of public destruction - An incongruous proposition C.4 Sanction of Speaker C.5 Claiming privilege and inadmissibility of video recordings as evidence C.5.1 Immunity from publication of proceedings of the House C.5.2 Inadmissibility of the video recording as evidence A. Factual Background Leave granted.
(2.) The appeals arise out of a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala dated 12 March 2021. The High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1] upheld the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate[2], Thiruvananthapuram declining to grant permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution of the first to sixth respondents under Section 321 of the CrPC. [1] "CrPC" [2] "CJM"
(3.) On 13 March 2015, the then Finance Minister was presenting the budget for the financial year 2015-2016 in the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The respondent-accused[3], who at the time were Members of the Legislative Assembly[4] belonging to the party in opposition, disrupted the presentation of the budget, climbed over to the Speaker's dais and damaged furniture and articles including the Speaker's chair, computer, mike, emergency lamp and electronic panel, causing a loss of Rs. 2,20,093/-. The incident was reported to the Museum Police Station by the Legislative Secretary. Crime No. 236 of 2015 was registered under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code I860[5] and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984. On the completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 of the CrPC was submitted and cognizance was taken by the Additional CJM, Ernakulam of the said offences[6]. [3] The term "respondent-accused" refers to Respondent Nos 1 to 6 in SLP (Crl) No 4009 of 2021 and the petitioners in SLP (Crl) No 4481 of 2021. [4] "MLA" [5] "IPC" [6] C.C No. 151 of 2018. ;