India News | K'taka HC Rejects CT Ravi's Plea to Quash Case over Alleged Derogatory Remark on Woman Minister

Bengaluru, May 2 (PTI) The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed BJP MLC C T Ravi's petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly making a derogatory remark against Minister Laxmi Hebbalkar inside the Legislative Council in Belagavi last year.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, delivering the verdict, stated that if the alleged remark or gesture was indeed directed at the complainant--a woman--it could be construed as outraging her modesty.

Also Read | Siddaramaiah Death Threat: Karnataka CM Says 'Received Threat Calls, Asked Police To Find Those Responsible'.

He further observed that such an act bore no connection to the official proceedings of the legislature. "No nexus, no privilege," the court noted, as it dismissed the petition.

Ravi had been arrested on December 19, 2024, under Sections 75 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), but was released on bail following a High Court directive. He subsequently filed a plea to have the criminal case quashed.

Also Read | Ayodhya Ram Mandir Update: Pran Pratishtha of 'Ram Darbar' on 1st Floor From June 3; Over 700 Daily Passes Likely for Darshan.

Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, representing Ravi, argued that his client was protected under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, which grants immunity to legislators for anything said or any vote cast within the House.

He contended that any objectionable statement made in the legislature should fall within the Speaker's jurisdiction and not be subject to criminal proceedings.

Navadgi maintained that the constitutional provision provided complete immunity, regardless of whether the words were slanderous or unrelated to the legislative debate.

"There is no qualification in Article 194(2) that immunity only applies if the remark relates to proceedings. The absence of the phrase 'in the course of proceedings' is intentional," he said, arguing that the purpose of the provision is to allow legislators to speak freely without fear of prosecution.

However, Special Public Prosecutor Belliappa countered the argument by pointing to several Supreme Court judgments clarifying that parliamentary privilege is not absolute.

He emphasized that legislators enjoy only a qualified immunity and that actions falling outside the scope of legislative business could be subjected to legal scrutiny. He also noted that the alleged incident occurred during a break in the House, not during an official session.

The court had reserved its decision on February 24 and pronounced the dismissal of the petition on Friday, reiterating that the alleged act did not merit legislative privilege.

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)