Assembly ruckus trial begins after 11 years

The trial in the 2015 Assembly ruckus case began at the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Thiruvananthapuram on Tuesday, more than 11 years after violent protests disrupted the presentation of the state budget.

The proceedings concern six former legislators accused of damaging public property during a confrontation inside the Assembly on March 13, 2015. Former minister V Sivankutty, senior CPI(M) leader E P Jayarajan and former minister K T Jaleel are among those facing prosecution.

The court had scheduled the examination of P D Sarangadharan, who was Assembly secretary when the incident occurred, as the first prosecution witness. An engineer associated with copying digital recordings of the disturbance was also listed for examination during the initial stage.

The prosecution is expected to rely substantially on documentary evidence, eyewitness accounts and video recordings of the confrontation. The recordings are considered important because the alleged offences occurred inside the legislative chamber during proceedings that attracted considerable public attention.

The accused also include K Ajith, K Kunhammed and C K Sadasivan, all legislators when the incident occurred. Ajith, formerly associated with the Communist Party of India, subsequently joined the Bharatiya Janata Party.

The case concerns allegations that opposition legislators entered the Speaker’s dais, overturned furniture and damaged computers, microphones and electrical equipment while attempting to prevent then Finance Minister K M Mani from presenting the budget.

Police estimated the damage to public property at Rs 2,20,093. The prosecution alleges that the destruction occurred during an organised protest by Left Democratic Front legislators against Mani, who was facing allegations connected with the state’s bar bribery controversy.

The Museum police registered the criminal case following the disturbance. The charges involve alleged damage to public property and offences under provisions of criminal law governing trespass and mischief.

The commencement of trial follows prolonged litigation over whether the prosecution could proceed and whether the government possessed sufficient grounds to withdraw the criminal proceedings against the legislators.

The previous LDF government sought permission to withdraw the case, arguing for termination of the prosecution. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court rejected the request, and the Kerala High Court subsequently declined to interfere with that decision.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court, which dismissed the government’s appeal in July 2021. A bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah rejected the contention that legislative privileges could shield elected representatives from criminal prosecution for allegedly destroying public property.

The ruling established that parliamentary privileges and constitutional protections relating to legislative proceedings could not be invoked to justify acts of vandalism or exempt legislators from accountability under ordinary criminal law.

The Supreme Court also distinguished between legitimate legislative activities and conduct constituting alleged criminal offences. Its decision prevented withdrawal of the prosecution and required the accused to face the judicial process.

The defendants have disputed the allegations against them. During earlier proceedings, they maintained that the charges were unfounded and that the prosecution evidence did not establish their involvement in deliberate destruction of property.

Jayarajan had previously alleged that the case was politically motivated. He contended that opposition legislators were protesting against the treatment of women members during the confrontation and challenged the circumstances in which criminal proceedings were initiated.

Those claims remain part of the defence position and do not determine the criminal liability of any accused. The trial court must assess the prosecution evidence and defence arguments independently before reaching findings.

The case had also undergone further investigation by the Crime Branch. That exercise did not produce material requiring replacement of the original chargesheet, leaving the prosecution to proceed substantially on the evidence already collected.

The trial had been delayed by successive applications, appeals and procedural disputes, including petitions seeking discharge from the case and challenges concerning the personal appearance of the accused.

The High Court had previously declined to halt proceedings or grant blanket exemption from personal appearance, allowing the magistrate court to continue dealing with the prosecution.

The state government had appointed advocate Santhosh Kumar as special public prosecutor for the proceedings.

The initial witness schedule also included personnel connected with the Assembly’s digital video recorder and the preservation of footage documenting the events.

The court will examine that material alongside witness testimony under the applicable rules of evidence. The prosecution must establish the allegations against each accused individually, while the defence retains the right to challenge the witnesses and the authenticity and interpretation of recordings.