<p>The Supreme Court on Monday said the unruly behaviour of lawmakers in Parliament and Assembly cannot be condoned and they should face trial for destroying public property inside the House.</p>.<p>“There has to be a modicum of decorum in legislative bodies," a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah told senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Kerala government.</p>.<p>The Kerala government moved the top court for its nod to withdraw cases against CPI(M) leaders, including education minister V Sivankutty, for vandalism in the state Assembly in 2015, when the current ruling party was in the Opposition. </p>.<p>"What we're trying to tell you is that we cannot condone the behaviour of this kind of MLA who throws mic and destroys public property while a Bill is being laid," the bench further told the counsel.</p>.<p>As Kumar responded that he will bring everything on record, the bench said, “What behaviour are you presenting to the public? What is the larger public interest in shielding an MLA who created a ruckus while a financial bill was being laid?” </p>.<p>The court stressed that the presentation of the Finance Bill was of utmost importance.</p>.<p>The bench also pointed out that the decision to withdraw the case has to be taken by the public prosecutor and not by the state government. </p>.<p>“State cannot decide if it is to be withdrawn or not. It is only the prerogative of the public prosecutor," the bench said.</p>.<p>The bench put the matter for consideration on July 15, giving time to file additional documents.</p>.<p>The Kerala High Court, in an order passed on March 12, had refused to give its nod saying that the elected representatives are expected to uphold the prestige of the House or face consequences. </p>.<p>The MLAs had vandalised Speaker's dais, uprooted his chair, pulled out the mic, computer etc. </p>.<p>The state government, for its part, referred to certain privileges and immunities conferred to the members of the Parliament and State Legislature under the Constitution. The current government maintained that it was not proper for the Secretary of Legislative Assembly to file cases against the MLAs about an incident that happened on the floor of the House during the protest made by the Opposition members.</p>.<p>The FIR was lodged without the consent of the Speaker of the Assembly, it claimed.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Monday said the unruly behaviour of lawmakers in Parliament and Assembly cannot be condoned and they should face trial for destroying public property inside the House.</p>.<p>“There has to be a modicum of decorum in legislative bodies," a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah told senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Kerala government.</p>.<p>The Kerala government moved the top court for its nod to withdraw cases against CPI(M) leaders, including education minister V Sivankutty, for vandalism in the state Assembly in 2015, when the current ruling party was in the Opposition. </p>.<p>"What we're trying to tell you is that we cannot condone the behaviour of this kind of MLA who throws mic and destroys public property while a Bill is being laid," the bench further told the counsel.</p>.<p>As Kumar responded that he will bring everything on record, the bench said, “What behaviour are you presenting to the public? What is the larger public interest in shielding an MLA who created a ruckus while a financial bill was being laid?” </p>.<p>The court stressed that the presentation of the Finance Bill was of utmost importance.</p>.<p>The bench also pointed out that the decision to withdraw the case has to be taken by the public prosecutor and not by the state government. </p>.<p>“State cannot decide if it is to be withdrawn or not. It is only the prerogative of the public prosecutor," the bench said.</p>.<p>The bench put the matter for consideration on July 15, giving time to file additional documents.</p>.<p>The Kerala High Court, in an order passed on March 12, had refused to give its nod saying that the elected representatives are expected to uphold the prestige of the House or face consequences. </p>.<p>The MLAs had vandalised Speaker's dais, uprooted his chair, pulled out the mic, computer etc. </p>.<p>The state government, for its part, referred to certain privileges and immunities conferred to the members of the Parliament and State Legislature under the Constitution. The current government maintained that it was not proper for the Secretary of Legislative Assembly to file cases against the MLAs about an incident that happened on the floor of the House during the protest made by the Opposition members.</p>.<p>The FIR was lodged without the consent of the Speaker of the Assembly, it claimed.</p>
