Assembly Ruckus Case Verdict: Govt hits back | Petition dismissed | Supreme Court directs accused to face trial.

Assembly Ruckus Case Verdict: Govt hits back | Petition dismissed | Supreme Court directs accused to face trial.

During the UDF government, on March 13, 2015, on the day of the presentation of the 13th budget of KM Mani, there was a scuffle and destruction of public property following protests by opposition MLAs in the Assembly.

Assembly Ruckus Case Verdict: Govt hits back;  Supreme Court directs accused to face trial.

During the UDF government, on March 13, 2015, on the day of the presentation of the 13th budget of KM Mani, there was a scuffle and destruction of public property following protests by opposition MLAs in the Assembly.

The Supreme Court has given its verdict in the assembly bribery case which has become a disgrace to Kerala itself. The court examined the footage of the Kerala Assembly Ruckus case and ruled that it was a very serious case. 

The state government has suffered a major setback in the Assembly bribery case.  The apex court also slammed the government for saying that all the six accused, including Minister V Sivankutty, should face trial.  The apex court rejected the state government’s plea to withdraw the case.

 In his judgment, Justice Chandrachud made it clear that the protection of the Church was not protection from criminal offenses.  Protection is only as representatives of the people.  He said the petition was filed with a misinterpretation of Article 184.  The government’s move to withdraw the case is wrong.  The actions of the MLAs violated the boundaries of the Constitution.  It cannot avail the protection of the people’s representatives.  The court said the destruction of public property could not be included in the scope of freedom of expression.

The accused in the case are CPM members, present Education Minister V Sivankutty, former Speaker P Sriramakrishnan, former ministers EP Jayarajan and KT Jalil, former MLAs CK Sadasivan, K Kunhahammed Master and CPI member K Ajith.

 During the UDF government, on March 13, 2015, on the day of KM Mani’s 13th budget presentation, there was a scuffle and destruction of public property following protests by opposition MLAs in the Assembly.  The protest was against the then Finance Minister KM Mani for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 1 crore to open the locked bars.  Opposition groups called for the beleagured PM to resign.  Opposition groups called for a boycott of the assembly on Friday, removing hundreds of protesters by truck.  A total loss of Rs 2.5 lakh was found.  The police registered a case on the complaint of the assembly secretary.

Kerala Assembly Ruckus Case: Govt hits back; Petition dismissed; All defendants must face trial.

The legislature then went through the most turbulent atmosphere in history.  The protest ended with the suspension and criminal case against five MLAs.  Left MLAs pushed the watch and ward and slammed into the speaker’s dias, overturning the chair and destroying the mic and computer.  Thomas Isaac and Jameela Prakash came to the scene with allegations that Watch and Ward had been hijacked and Sivadasan Nair had been attacked.  Shibu Babyjon’s blocking of ES Bijumol MLA was also controversial.  Opposition MLAs also rushed to the scene after MA Wahid came on the scene against KK Shailaja.

 Speaker N Sakthan, who arrived in Dias with the help of Watch and Wards, gestured for the budget presentation.  Meanwhile, KM Mani came in through the other door and started reading the budget.  After reading only a few lines, he announced that the budget had been presented.  With this, the ruling party MLAs distributed laddu and embraced Mani.

The government later withdrew the case in February 2018 at the request of V Sivankutty.

The government later withdrew the case in February 2018 at the request of V Sivankutty.  However, the High Court intervened to block the withdrawal of the case and clarified that the accused in the case should face trial.  The state government approached the Supreme Court against this.  Ramesh Chennithala has also filed an objection in the Supreme Court against the move to withdraw the case.

 During the hearing of the case, the court had sharply criticized the government.  The court asked what was in the public interest to end the case.  The court also clarified that the special right of MLAs is not to smash the property of the Assembly.  The bench, headed by Justice DY Chandrachud, had criticized the MLAs for their unforgivable behavior.

The state government, which was adamant that the MLAs had the constitutional protection to protest within the Assembly, had argued that the Speaker’s permission was necessary to file a case and that the case should be withdrawn to retain the prerogative of the House.  The testimony of the witnesses is unclear.  Church members have constitutional protection.  The state government has argued that crimes that are part of a political dispute cannot be seen as other crimes.

 However, Justice Chandrachud asked whether the Assembly should take action if an MLA uses a gun inside the House.  Whether public property was destroyed to protect the public interest.  There are also strong arguments in court.  Can the destruction of court property be justified in its name?  The bench also directed that the government counsel should not speak on behalf of the accused.

 Senior advocate Mahesh Jatmalani had also argued on behalf of Ramesh Chennithala that he could not be given special consideration as a legislator if public property was destroyed.

Earlier, the Supreme court had ruled that the government had no right to withdraw the handcuffs case in the Kerala Legislative Assembly during the presentation of the budget. 

Assembly Ruckus Case Verdict: Govt hits back | Petition dismissed | Supreme Court directs accused to face trial.
Assembly Ruckus Case Verdict: Govt hits back | Petition dismissed | Supreme Court directs accused to face trial.

The court observed that the conduct of the MLAs in the Assembly was unforgivable and therefore the trial could not be stayed. Moreover, the Supreme Court has strongly criticized the state’s demand for the case to be withdrawn.