Legislators in India have no absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes such as sexual harassment, as remarks or gestures that insult a woman's modesty, even within the legislature, fall outside privileges protecting legislative speech.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner, a Member of Legislative Council of the State of Karnataka now stands before this Court seeking quashing of registration of crime, in Crime No.186 of 2024, which alleges offences penal under Sections 75 and 79 of the BNS 2023.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, are as follows:-

The petitioner, a people’s representative, is said to be in public field for over 3 decades. He is presently a Member of Vidhana Parishad/Legislative Council. The 2^nd respondent is the complainant, a woman, Member of the Legislative Assembly. The genesis of the imbroglio lies, in the tumultuous events that unfolded on 19-12-2024, in the Vidhana Parishad. It is the allegation of the 2^nd respondent that on 19-12-2024 amidst disorderly adjournment of Legislative Council, the petitioner is alleged to have made utterances, that undermined the dignity of the Vidhana Parishad, and those utterances had outraged the modesty of the complainant. A complaint then comes to be registered on the same day before the jurisdictional Police at Belagavi for offences punishable under Sections 75 and 79 of the BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita (‘ BNS ’). The investigation is sought to be conducted. In the interregnum, it appears, the Chairman of the Legislative Council who was seized of the matter is said to have closed the issue by observing that nothing of that kind has happened in the Council,on the score, that it is only the domain of the Chairman to have enquired into anything that happens inside the House, the Chairman has decided the issue. It appears, the petitioner fails to cooperate with the further investigation as he denies giving of his voice sample for the purpose of investigation. It is at that juncture the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject petition, seeking reprieve from the sword of criminal prosecution

3. Heard Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.A. Belliappa, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri K.A.Phaneendra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

SUBMISSIONS:

Petitioner:

4. The learned senior counsel Sri Prabhuling K Navadgi would vehemently contend:

a. The Chairman of the Legislative Council, after hearing both the parties i.e., the petitioner and the complainant, has rendered his decision on 19-12-2024. The decision forms a part of the privilege of the House. The decision is in favour of the petitioner.

b. The protection given to a Member of the Legislature from any proceeding in the Court of law in Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India is not qualified, it is complete protection.

c. Registration of a crime before the jurisdictional police, in respect of words spoken by the petitioner inside the House is completely barred having constitutional injunction under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India.

d. Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India protects a Member of the Legislature from any proceeding, in any Court, in respect of anything said by him in the Legislature.

e. It is not in dispute that the alleged act is a word spoken by the petitioner while he was in the Legislature. Hence, the FIR runs counter to the mandate of Article 194(2). He would again reiterate that