[2015 Kerala Assembly Ruckus Case] High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Three Congress Legislators

Former LDF legislators K K Lathika and Jameela Prakasham filed complaints against the legislators for obstructing their movement inside the Assembly by using force and touching their bodies. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage a woman's modesty), and 34 (acts done with criminal intent) of the IPC.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan held that the intent of the petitioners was to ensure that Finance Minister K M Mani could present the budget in the Kerala Legislative Assembly, to fulfil a constitutional duty. The Court thus stated that the petitioners had no intent to wrongfully restrain or outrage the modesty of the complainant women.  

“The incident in this case happened in a Legislative Assembly where the complainants tried to obstruct the Minister from presenting the Budget for the financial year. At that time, when the complainants were proceeding to obstruct the Minister, the petitioners obstructed them. In such situation, it cannot be said that there is an intention to outrage the modesty, but the intention is to see that the Finance Minister present the Budget, which is his constitutional duty.”

Background

The case involves the ruckus which had happened in the Kerala Assembly in March 2015, while the CPI(M) members were protesting against the then UDF government over the bar bribery allegations against the then Finance Minister KM Mani, who was trying to present the budget speech. The alleged incident took place on March 13, 2015, in the Kerala Legislative Assembly.

The petitioners were accused of impeding Jameela Prakasham's movement in the Assembly by physically forcing her, which allegedly outraged her modesty. It was stated that the Legislative Assembly is a public space and that the petitioners obstructed her free movement within the House. Consequently, Jameela Prakasham filed a complaint against MLAs Dominic Presentation and K Sivadasan Nair. Additionally, a complaint was filed against MLA M A Vaheed by K K Lathika, who alleged that he touched her inappropriately and pushed her down.

The Magistrate took cognizance of both the complaints under Sections 341, and 354 read with 34 of the IPC. The petitioners have approached the High Court to quash the proceedings against them.

Findings

The Court referred to the Apex Court decision in the State of Kerala v K Ajith (2021), where a similar incident took place in the Kerala Legislative Assembly on the same date. The Apex Court held that legislators cannot claim protection of legislative privileges and immunity under Article 194 of the Constitution for committing acts of vandalism and criminal acts.

Considering whether Section 341 of IPC was made out against the petitioners, the Court noted that the complainants and other MLAs were trying to prevent the Finance Minister from presenting the budget in the Legislative Assembly. The Court stated that presenting the budget is a constitutional duty of the Finance Minister and the complainants had no right to obstruct it. The Court thus stated that no offence was made out against the petitioners under Section 341 even if the entire allegations in the complaints were true.

Court said, “The Members of Legislative Assembly have no right to obstruct the Finance Minister in presenting a budget except to demonstrate a peaceful protest against the same, if they are aggrieved. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Section 341 IPC is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The Court then went on to consider whether the legislators outraged the modesty of respondent women. The Court stated that the petitioners intended to ensure that there was no obstruction caused to the Finance Minister from presenting the Budget in the Legislative Assembly.

Considering the definitions of assault and force under the IPC, the Court observed that there is a prima facie case suggesting that the legislators assaulted and used force against the female complainants while attempting to prevent them from obstructing the Finance Minister's presentation of the Budget in the Assembly.

However, the Court stated that even if there was assault or force, it cannot be said that there was an intent to outrage the modesty of complainant women. The Court emphasized that the intent of the petitioners was to ensure that the Budget was presented by the Finance Minister in the Assembly.

Court said, “The test of outrage of modesty is to be determined by thinking whether a reasonable man will think that the act of the offender was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the woman. I am of the considered opinion that, even if there is assault or use of force from the side of the petitioners towards the complainants, the offence under Section 354 IPC is not made out.”

The Court thus quashed the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 341, 354 read with 34 of the IPC.

Case Title: M A Vaheed V K K Lathika And Other Cases

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 370 OF 2016 & Other cases

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 577

Click here to Read/Download Order