29-Feb-2012Dear FriendsThe four individuals who first complained to the Vidhana Soudha Police Station on 23-Feb-2012 against the 3 BJP MLAs' porngate (and thereafter represented to the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 24-Feb-2012) today filed an application under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code seeking immediate registration of FIR against the 3 BJP MLAs involved in porngate. Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 authorises a Magistrate to direct a police station to register a FIR and to investigate in the event that the police refuse to do so. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -1, Bangalore, Hon'ble Justice Venkatesh R Hulgi heard the application today. I argued for the Complainants. The Complainants are Anand Yadwad, C N Deepak, Phani Sai and Manjunath. I referred to numerous judgments and legal authorities to point out that ordinary crimes are never attracted by parliamentary privileges. I then submitted that the acts of the MLAs have shaken the faith of the people of this country in the democratic and representative form of Government. Further, those acts have seriously thretened public decency and public morality. The nation and the mass media are outraged and rightly so. I then pointed to the parliamentary expenses scandal that rocked the United Kingdom last year. I pointed out that the Telegraph newspaper in London had investigated and exposed the fact that dozens of members of the British Parliament had defrauded their Parliament by submitting bogus bills and invoices to seek wrongful reimbursement. The British Parliament allows its members to claim reimbursement for expenses incurred by members in connection with attendance in Parliament. Dozens of MPs had claimed bogus expenses by submitting false invoices. Once the Telegraph newspaper revealed it all, there arose a national outrage in the United Kingdom and last year, 6 MPs were convicted for periods between 12 months and 18 months. Those MPs had made elaborate arguments that their dishonesty and forgery inside their Parliament could not be questioned in any Court of law. Unimpressed with such arguments, the Magistrate Court, the Court of Appeals and their Supreme Court rejected their claims and directed the MPs to stand trial. Those judgments were also provided to the Court today. 

 I further pointed out that there is a misconception in India that our Supreme Court has said  in the JMM Bribery case that crimes committed inside the Parliament cannot be prosecuted under ordinary laws. I said that the Supreme Court had said no such thing. Further, I said that in the JMM Bribery case, there were four classes of alleged offenders. The Supreme Court interpreted Article 105 of the Constitution in a manner that those who receive bribes to vote in Parliament and then vote in the Parliament have committed acts in relaiton to proceedings in Parliament and cannot therefore be prosecuted. I pointed out that the Supreme Court had itself allowed three other class of offenders to be prosecuted in the JMM judgment:Ajit Singh who had received a bribe but did not vote in the Parliament was denied the protection of parliemantary privilege;Similarly P.V.Narasimha Rao and many other MPs who had given bribes were denied the protection of parliamentary privilege andLiquor barons Adhikeshavulu and others who had aided the Prime Minister and others to bribe some MPS were similarly denied the protection of parliamentary privilege. As such, I pointed out that at no point of time in Britain or in India have courts held that 'ordinary crimes are protected by parliamentary privilege'. I further pointed out that the acts of the MLAs were clandestine to the House itself and that no Court of law could possibly treat the acts of these MLAs as the necessary, incidental, related, proximate, connected or even a remote work of the Legislative Assembly. And that prosecuting the offending MLAs would not discourage free speech within the Legislative House in any manner. Further, I pointed out that the nation has been outraged at these acts and a swift justice is necessary to ensure that the offenders are immediately brought to book. And that, on any given day, 27% of the population of Karnataka suffer from the problem of poverty and hunger while another 18% suffer from malnourishment, elected representatives who are primarily required to solve the problem of hunger and poverty during their limited time inside the Legislative House should never have indulged in such acts of indecency and depravity.  The Hon'ble Court then said that it would hear further arguments on this application and  pass Orders on this application - both, at 3.30 pm on Friday, 02-Mar-2012.

 RegardsK.V.DHANANJAYAdvocateSupreme Court+91 99105 77765+91 99020 09390