MLAs'mayhem a parliamentary privilege'

Thiruvananthapuram: The Rs. 2.2-lakh- worth damages caused by LDF MLAs in the Assembly during the ruckus over preventing then finance minister K M Mani from presenting the budget in March 2015 has been justified as an act under the parliamentary privileges.

A petition filed by the prosecution seeking permission to withdraw the case  registered under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act also maintained that there were serious lapses in the investigation, especially that the Speaker's permission was not obtained to register case against MLAs.

The petition filed by assistant public prosecutor M S Aromalunni stated that the Speaker's permission was required to register cases even for criminal offences during the Assembly session. It also stated that the digital evidences like video footage of the commotion in the Assembly could not be considered as valid as it was copied with the help of officials and not with the permission of the Speaker, who is the official custodian., Industries minister E.P. Jayarajan,Local self-government minister K.T. Jaleel, CPM leaders V. Sivankutty, C.K. Sadasivan and K. Kunjahmed Master and K. Ajith of CPI were arraigned in the case. The state government recently decided to withdraw the case and hence a petition in this regard was filed at the special court for trail of cases against MPs and MLAs in Kochi. The court will be considering objections filed by Opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala and RTI activists M T Thomas and Peter Mayaliparampil on September 25. The Crime Branch that investigated the case may also object t
o the lapses in investigation cited by the prosecution.

According to the petition seeking permission to withdrawal, the incident pertaining to the case occurred during protests by opposition in the assembly during budget session. )Hence it is associated with parliamentary privilege and in case of breach of the privilege or contempt it would come only under the special jurisdictional ambit of the speaker. It further justified the violent act of the MLAs by stating that without the parliamentary privileges MLAs could not discharge their functions efficiently and effectively.

The petition also said that many MLAs of opposition and ruling fronts were involved in the 'political contestation' in the house, only a few are arraigned in the case. It also pointed out that no MLAs were made eye witnesses in the case