Does Article 194 give MLAs immunity for criminal acts?

No. Legislative privilege protects debate and votes, not crimes. Destruction of public property is prosecutable even if it happens inside the Assembly.

What did the Court say about Section 321 CrPC withdrawals?

Courts must supervise withdrawals. The Prosecutor must show good reasons like public interest or lack of evidence. Mere privilege claims are not enough.

Are Assembly video recordings needed at the withdrawal stage?

No. When deciding a Section 321 application, courts do not rule on admissibility or sufficiency of evidence like videos.

Is a budget-day protest a protected proceeding under Article 194(2)?

Disruptive acts that damage property are not protected as “proceedings” for immunity. Accountability under criminal law remains.

What is the big takeaway for students?

Privilege safeguards speech, not violence. Courts can refuse withdrawal if it harms public justice. Elected members are also subject to criminal law.

The State of Kerala v. K. Ajith (2021)

Criminal Procedure Supreme Court of India Judgment Year: 2021 Article 194 & Sec 321 CrPC Bench: SC Reading time: ~8 min

By Gulzar Hashmi | India | Published: 11-Sep-2025

CASE_TITLE The State of Kerala v. K. Ajith (2021) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS Article 194 privilege Section 321 CrPC Withdrawal of prosecution SECONDARY_KEYWORDS Legislative immunity Public property damage Assembly proceedings

PUBLISH_DATE: 11-Sep-2025 | AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi | LOCATION: India | Slug: the-state-of-kerala-v-k-ajith-2021

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court drew a clear line: legislative privilege protects debate, not destruction. MLAs cannot claim immunity for damaging public property inside the House. The Court also explained how judges should handle Section 321 CrPC withdrawal requests—by supervising, asking for real reasons, and guarding public justice.

Bottom line: No one is above the law. Protests may be political, but criminal acts remain criminal.

Issues

Can courts refuse a Prosecutor’s request to withdraw under Section 321 CrPC?
Do Article 194 privileges protect MLAs from criminal liability for destruction of property?
Do such acts count as “proceedings” under Article 194(2)?
Are Assembly videos relevant at the withdrawal stage?

Rules

Article 194 (COI): Privileges aid free speech and House functioning—not criminal acts.
Section 321 CrPC: Court supervises withdrawal; reasons must serve public interest or legality.
Criminal Law: IPC & PDPP Act apply even within legislative premises.
Evidence at 321 stage: Courts need not decide admissibility/sufficiency then.

Privileges are shields for democracy, not cover for violence.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline of events inside the Kerala Legislative Assembly

13 Mar 2015: During the budget speech, six opposition MLAs climbed to the Speaker’s dais and disrupted the session.

Damage to chair, computer, mic, panel, lamp—about ₹2,20,093.

Charges & Cognizance: IPC §§ 34, 447, 427 and PDPP Act §3(1); CJM took cognizance.

21 Jul 2018: Prosecutor sought withdrawal under §321 CrPC, citing Article 194(3) privilege.

22 Sep 2020: Thiruvananthapuram CJM refused consent to withdraw.

12 Mar 2021: Kerala High Court upheld the CJM’s refusal.

SLPs: The State and Respondents approached the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellants (State/Respondents)

Actions occurred in the House; privilege should shield members.
Public interest supports ending prosecution to reduce political friction.
Video evidence needs Speaker’s sanction; withdrawal should proceed.

Opposing View

Privilege does not extend to crimes like mischief and trespass.
Withdrawal must rest on lawful, reasoned grounds—not convenience.
Evidence disputes are irrelevant at the Section 321 stage.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the refusals to withdraw. It clarified that Article 194 does not immunize criminal acts. Damage to public property is prosecutable even if it happens inside the Assembly. The Court also reaffirmed the court’s supervisory role over Section 321 withdrawals—applications must be in good faith and for legitimate reasons.

Result: No blanket immunity; prosecution can proceed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legislative privilege protects deliberation, not criminal conduct.
Court must ensure Section 321 withdrawals rest on public interest and legality.
At withdrawal stage, courts do not test evidentiary admissibility or sufficiency.

Why It Matters

The decision protects democratic debate while preserving rule of law. It stops misuse of privilege as a shield for violence and ensures withdrawals serve justice, not partisan convenience.

It signals that elected office increases responsibility—it does not reduce legal accountability.

Key Takeaways

No immunity for crime: Article 194 ≠ license to damage property.
Section 321 is supervised: Courts need real, recorded reasons.
Evidence later: Admissibility debates wait for trial stage.
Public justice first: Withdrawal cannot undercut accountability.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Privilege ≠ Permit.”

Name it: Debate is protected, destruction is not.
Check §321: Ask: public interest? good faith? legal grounds?
Push to trial when needed: Evidence questions come later.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Do Article 194 privileges bar prosecution for property damage, and when can courts deny Section 321 withdrawal?

Rule

Privileges cover speech and votes; criminal law still applies. Section 321 withdrawals require court supervision and valid reasons.

Application

Acts in the House included destruction; that is criminal, not privileged. The withdrawal request lacked proper public-interest grounds.

Conclusion

No immunity for criminal acts; refusal to withdraw was proper.

Glossary

Article 194: State legislature privileges for speech and proceedings.
Section 321 CrPC: Provision allowing Public Prosecutor to seek withdrawal of prosecution with court’s consent.
PDPP Act: Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Proceedings: Formal legislative business; does not include violent disruption.