Karnataka High Court: While considering the instant petition by C.T. Ravi, Member of Karnataka Vidhana Parishad (Legislative Council), seeking to quash registration of crime under Sections 75 and 79 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); the Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J.*, had to consider whether parliamentary/legislative privileges under Articles 194(2) and 194(3) of the Constitution generates absolute immunity of happenings inside the House?
The Court held that judicial review is permissible even in cases where the parliamentary privilege is projected, but not in all circumstances, only on a case-to-case basis. The Court further held that Article 194 of the Constitution does not bestow absolute immunity for the actions done by Legislators, if those actions have no nexus to the functioning of the House. Therefore, the test laid down is, nexus to the functioning of the House or nexus to the transaction of business of the House. Therefore, there is no absolute immunity that the Legislators can claim nor absolute bar of interference by the Constitutional Courts. The Court held that Criminal acts inside the House are not immune from prosecution. “Spoken word in the Legislature by the Legislators would ordinarily come within the immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India, but not in certain exceptional circumstances”.
“The legislature is not a sanctuary for defamation or gendered invective, rather an institution where robust debate must be tempered with decorum and respect”.
Background:
The petitioner is presently a Member of Vidhana Parishad/Legislative Council. The 2nd Respondent is the complainant, a woman Member of the Legislative Assembly. The genesis of the issue lies in the tumultuous events that unfolded on 19-12-2024, in the Vidhana Parishad. The 2nd respondent alleged that on 19-12-2024 amidst disorderly adjournment of Legislative Council, the petitioner made objectionable utterance directed towards the 2nd Respondent, that undermined the dignity of the Vidhana Parishad, and those utterances had outraged the modesty of the complainant.
A complaint was registered on the same day before the jurisdictional Police at Belagavi for offences punishable under Sections 75 and 79 of the BNS. In the interregnum the Chairman of the Legislative Council who was seized of the matter, closed the issue by observing that nothing what was alleged had happened in the Council; and that it is only the domain of the Chairman to have enquired into anything that happens inside the House. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to cooperate with the further investigation by refusing to give his voice sample for the purpose of investigation.
It was at that juncture the petitioner knocked at the doors of the High Court seeking reprieve from criminal prosecution.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the matter, the Court noted that Article 194 deals with powers and privileges of the House of Legislature and of Members and Committees thereof. Article 194(3) deals with privileges which starts with the words ‘in other respects’ the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Legislature of a State shall be such as may from time to time defined by the Legislature by law or until so defined shall be those obtaining before the coming into force of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution. The Court noted that fulcrum case revolves round the privileges of the Members of the House as obtaining under Article 194 of the Constitution.
Perusing and relying on plethora of Supreme Court precedents interpreting Article 194, the Court pointed out that expressions “anything” and “any”, must be read in the context of the accompanying expressions in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution. The words in respect of would mean, arising out of or bearing a clear relation to, and cannot be interpreted to mean anything which may have even a remote connection with the speech.
The Court hence concluded that judicial review of what transpires in the parliament or the legislature in certain circumstances is available. A member of the legislature cannot claim that he cannot be prosecuted and if prosecuted it would bring down the dignity of the House.
Perusing the allegations levelled by the 2nd Respondent, the Court noted that Sections 75 and 79 of the BNS deals with sexual harassment and insulting a woman’s modesty respectively. Perusing cases laws discussing outraging of woman’s modesty and sexual harassment, the Court stated that respect and reputation of a woman in any civilized society, shows basic civility of any such civilized society. No citizen, in a civilized society, can afford to conceive the idea that he can create a hollow in the honour of a woman. Such thinking is not only lamentable, but deplorable. “What forms the fulcrum of the conundrum is certain words spoken on the floor of the house, not by an ordinary citizen, but a responsible representative of the people”.
The Court explained that the issue in the instant case is not physical acts of the petitioner, but, verbal acts, which has the effect of outraging the modesty of a woman. The alleged words that the petitioner has uttered is calling the complainant a “prostitute”. This undoubtedly forms the ingredient of both Sections 75 and 79 of the BNS. Deliberating whether such word spoken is immune from any action, the Court stated that the unequivocal and emphatic answer is, a no. The alleged word spoken, if spoken, or gesture made, if made, against a woman certainly, outrages her modesty and it above all, can have no nexus to the functioning of the House or no relation to a transaction of the business of the House.
The Court explained that whether the petitioner has spoken or uttered the word against the complainant or has used such gestures which would demean her dignity or outrage her modesty has to be investigated. Therefore, these acts which eroded the dignity of a woman or outraged her modesty cannot be protected under the parasol of legislator’s privilege of anything done inside the house. “Criminal acts inside the House are not immune from prosecution. In the case at hand it is still under investigation”.
Owing to the facts of the instant case, as it concerns the dignity or modesty of a woman and allegedly calling a woman, a fellow legislator, a ‘prostitute’, on the floor of the house; not only prima facie outrages her modesty but sullies the sanctity of the House. Calling a fellow woman Legislator a prostitute, in the legislature has no nexus to the functioning of the House nor has nexus to the transaction of business in the House. “No Nexus; No Privilege”.
In its concluding observations, the Court said that in the grand tapestry or the labyrinth of democracy, the privilege of legislative speech is a vital thread. Therefore, it must be woven with the fibres of responsibility and ethical conduct. The legislature is an exalted forum for deliberation, not a forum for personal vilification. “While this Court will always remain the sentinel of legislative autonomy, it cannot permit invocation of privilege to stymie the imperatives of justice”.
Hence the Court rejected the petition for quashment due to lack of merit.
[C.T. Ravi v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 18, decided on 2-5-2025]
*Judgment by Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Petitioner: SRI PRABHULING K NAVADGI, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE
Respondent: SRI B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP A/W SRI B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R 1 AND R 3; SRI K.A. PHANEENDRA, SR.COUNSEL FOR R 2