Sexual harassment case: Karnataka HC declines to quash criminal proceedings against BJP MLC C T Ravi

Ravi’s counsels argued that only overt acts, such as physical assault, would not be covered by the immunity granted to legislators. It was further argued that the scope of judicial review in such cases was also limited, and spoken words within the House could not be the subject of criminal proceedings.

The opposing prosecutor argued that, as per the test for legislative privilege, the matter should be related to the functioning of the House as well as the discharge of duties of the legislator. Drawing emphasis to the word allegedly used by Ravi against the minister, he argued that if investigation was not permitted, it would lead to a situation wherein any legislator could outrage the modesty of a woman through words.

The single-member bench noted that the immunity enjoyed by legislators was not absolute and stated, “The Apex Court has clearly held that Article 194 of the Constitution does not bestow absolute immunity for the actions done by Legislators, if those actions have no nexus to the functioning of the House… Spoken words in the Legislature by the Legislators would ordinarily come within the immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India, but not in certain exceptional circumstances.”

The bench further explained, “The alleged word that the petitioner has uttered… undoubtedly forms the ingredient of both Sections 75 and 79 of the BNS. Whether such a word spoken is immune from any action. The unequivocal and emphatic answer is a ‘NO’. The alleged word spoken, if spoken, or gesture made, if made, against a woman, certainly outrages her modesty and it above all, can have no nexus to the functioning of the House or no relation to a transaction of the business of the House.”

The court, though, noted that the question of whether such a remark was made was a matter for investigation.

While dismissing the petition, the court stated that the legislature was not a “sanctuary for defamation or gendered invective” but an institution where debates would have to be tempered with decorum and respect.