The judgment establishes the principle that actions carried out by officers within the precincts of the House, in compliance with the Speaker's orders, are protected by the privileges and immunities of the House of Legislature and its members, and are beyond the cognizance of ordinary Courts.

The 4th accused in C.C. 1781/83 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate II. Trivandrum is the petitioner in Cri. M.C. 319/83. Third accused in the said case has preferred Cri. M.C. 320/83. These petitions are for quashing the complaint in the said case.

2. The material averments made by the petitioners in these petitions, in a nutshell, are as follows:-

The petitioner in M.C. 319/83 is working as Security Officer, Government Secretariat, having lien as Circle Inspector of Police, S.A.P. - C - Company, Trivandrum. The petitioner in Crl. M.C. 320/83 is Circle Inspector of Police working in Trivandrum District. Petitioners were deployed for duty in the Legislative Assembly to assist the Watch and Ward of the Kerala Legislative Assembly which was subjected to serious law and order situation within the Assembly premises. The petitioners had been specifically instructed to prevent the unlawful entry of others into the Legislative Assembly Hall to maintain law and order situation. Petitioners were to carry out the directions given by the Hon'ble Speaker. The petitioners were engaged in such official duties detailed by their superior officers in connection with the implementation of the orders of the Hon'ble Speaker. The only complaint levelled against the petitioners is that they prevented first respondent-complainant from entering into the Assembly Hall. The petitioners prevented the first respondent from entering the Assembly Hall in compliance with the instructions given by superior officers in consultation with the Hon'ble Speaker. They have not committed any offence much less offence punishable under S. 323, 249(b), 341 and 325 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Hence they pray for quashing the complaint.

3. A copy of the complaint is produced along with Crl. M.C. 320/83. It contains the following averments. The complainant is a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. On 30-2-83 he reached the Assembly parlour at about 8.20 a.m. When he was about to enter the door of Assembly parlour, he was prevented by accused 1 to 4. The accused were accompanied by a contingent of watch and ward and policemen in mufty numbering about 200. The first accused caught hold of the complainant and began to inflict blows. First accused turned aside his finger causing dislocation of the bone of the middle finger of the left hand. The other accused accompanied by security staff began to encircle the complainant and did not allow him to proceed further. The accused prevented other M.L.As. also from entering the Assembly Hall Complainant was forcibly removed by the first and second accused to the press room. A3 and A4 assisted them. The first accused kicked the complainant and abused him in filthy language. First accused again threatened to beat the complainant with chappals. He also threatened to kill the complaint if he dared to move and thereby wrongfully restrained him. Thereafter the complaint fell unconscious. At about 4 p.m. he found himself lying on a bed in the General Hospital, Trivandrum. He was treated as an inpatient off the evening of 4-4-83. The complainant is entitled to enter the Assembly Hall for attending the session. The accused have no right to prevent him from entering the Assembly Hall. They have inflicted bodily injuries on the complainant without any provision. Accused 3 and 4 have no right to be at the place of occurrence. Their mere presence at the scene of occurrence. Hence the accused have committed offence punishable under Ss. 323, 294(b), 341, 324 and 447 read with S. 34. I.P.C.

4. The main argument advanced by the counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the accused were discharging the duties assigned to them by the Hon'ble Speaker of Legislative Assembly, that they were maintaining Law and Order in the Legislature and that it cannot be made subject to the jurisdiction of any Court. There is a constitutional inhibition in favour of the petitioners. Article 212(2) and Art. 194 of the Constitution of I