Kerala Assembly ruckus: No stay on order against ministers

The leaders face charges of breaking chairs, snapping mikes and climbing atop tables. The court posted the case for November 3.
Kerala assembly house (Photo | PTI)
Kerala assembly house (Photo | PTI)

KOCHI:  The Kerala High Court on Tuesday declined to stay the Thiruvananthapuram Chief Judicial Magistrate Court’s order directing ministers E P Jayarajan and K T Jaleel and four other LDF leaders to appear before it on Wednesday in a criminal case registered in connection with the ruckus that took place in the Kerala Assembly during a budget session in 2015.

The leaders face charges of breaking chairs, snapping mikes and climbing atop tables. The court posted the case for November 3.

The state government approached the HC after the Magistrate Court dismissed an earlier  petition seeking withdrawal of the case against the two ministers and the then LDF MLAs K Ajith, V Sivankutty, C K Sadasivan and K Kunjammed. When the petition came up in HC, the Additional Advocate General sought an interim stay on the proceedings. But the court declined it. The investigation had found that the state exchequer incurred a loss of D2.2 lakh following the vandalism. In the petition, the government submitted that the magistrate’s order was illegal.

“The incident happened as part of a protest by the then Opposition legislators against the budget presentation in tune with the political situation prevailing then. The Chief Judicial Magistrate overlooked the trite legal principles that it was the right of the legislature to be the sole judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings. The court could not go into the lawfulness of the proceedings of the legislature,” the government contended.

The government termed as wrong the magistrate’s finding that the application submitted by the public prosecutor was not in good faith and on external influence. The magistrate had observed that the allegations were serious since the accused were legislators with a high duty to obey the rules of the country. The state argued this was irrelevant and that the magistrate was bound only to verify whether the prosecutor had acted in good faith.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com