Kerala Assembly Ruckus Case: Accused Move High Court To Set Aside Magistrate's Order Rejecting Their Plea For Discharge

The accused in the infamous Assembly Ruckus case have approached the Kerala High Court with a revision petition seeking to set aside the recent order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting their plea of discharge. 

The revision petitioners have also sought the Court to call for the records from the lower court leading to the said order. 

Education Minister V Sivankutty and then opposition MLAs E P Jayarajan, KT Jaleel, K Ajith, C.K Sadasivan and K Kunhammed had attracted public attention in 2015 for creating a ruckus in the House while the budget was presented.

The ruckus happened 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 petitioners had preferred a plea for discharge before the Chief Judicial Magstrate, but rejecting the same, the accused were directed to appear before it to frame charges today. Challenging this decision of the lower court, they approached the High Court.

According to them, the lower court has erred in failing to consider or apply the various binding precedents relied on by them while defending their plea for discharge. 

Their case is that there is no material available on record on the basis of which the Magistrate could reasonably come to the conclusion that they had any intent to protest against the Asembly proceedings. 

More than 130 MLAs were present in the Legislative Assembly Hall and none of them complained about the incident. On this note, the petitioners argued that a case was registered against them with an ulterior motive and malafide intentions on the basis of a latter of the Secreatry of the Legislative Assembly. 

It was argued in the revision petition that they were totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them, and that the finding of the final report filed by the Deputy Police Superintendent are not supported by any legal evidence. 

They further pointed out that the Speaker of the Assembly, who is the competent authority to take action in such cases, had not made any complaint in this regard, and that in the absence of the same, the criminal proceedings cannot stand against them. 

According to the petitioners, they would be put to irreparable hardship, unbearable injury and serious prejudice if the prosecution proceedings against them are allowed to continue. 

Case Title: K. Ajith & Ors v. State of Kerala