The failure of the state and Central agencies to bring back Prajwal Revanna, the main accused in the Hassan sex scandal that rocked the country last month, for trial, continues to cause concern.

Coupled with this is the growing apprehension in the general public that Revanna may just manage to escape any punishment for his alleged crimes, using the privileges that he enjoys as a Member of Parliament, that is in the event he does return to the country .

He is also contesting the Hassan Lok Sabha seat, polls for which were held on April 26. The tenure of the 17th Lok Sabha, of which he is a member, ends next month on June 14. The results of the 2024 Parliamentary polls will be declared on June 4.

Just after the polls ended, Revanna reportedly “fled the country”, ostensibly to Germany, on a Diplomatic Passport. This was soon after the release of several videos allegedly showing his involvement in the sexual assault.

The videos went public a few days before the polling concluded on April 26. Prajwal Revanna’s whereabouts remain a secret with his father, H. D. Revanna and uncle H. D. Kumaraswamy, claiming ignorance about his location.

Meanwhile, multiple complaints of sexual harassment and rape have been filed against Prajwal by a few victims, including one of kidnapping against his father.

This apart, the incumbent MP has powerful political connections. He is the grandson of former Prime Minister Deve Gowda. What is more, as part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the Janata Dal-Secular, is contesting from Karnataka’s Hassan, Mandya and Kolar Parliamentary constituencies.

These factors have further strengthened doubts in the common man on whether action, if any, would be taken against the main accused. It is in this light that the statement of G. Parameshwara, state Home Minister,assumes importance.

According to Parameshwara, the Centre is yet to respond to Karnataka’s request to cancel Prajwal’s Diplomatic Passport. He told the media that Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, wrote to the Prime Minister a week ago asking that Prajwal’s passport be cancelled.

Now, it is learnt that another letter has been sent, and speculation is rife that the Centre may finally revoke Prajwal’s passport. The Special Court for Elected Representatives had also issued an arrest warrant against Prajwal.

“There has been no response from the Centre. It should help within the framework of the law. It is not a question of H. D. Revanna or Prajwal Revanna, but one of law. It is the duty of the Central government to protect the law,” the Home Minister said.

The Special Courts for MPs and MLAs, have jurisdiction to try all cases against the former and sitting legislatures, irrespective of their status at the time of commission of such offences.

Meanwhile, following the accompanying furore after the revelation of the scandal, the state government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the charges against Prajwal. It also requested the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to issue a Blue Corner notice to help locate Prajwal.

Initial reports indicated that Prajwal “escaped to Germany”. Sources close to him suggested that he may return in a fortnight or so. That has not happened so far.

The SIT and the state government find themselves at their wits’ end, not knowing how to move forward, faced as they are with allegations of “harassing the family of former Prime Minister, Deve Gowda”.

The Gowdas, particularly Prajwal's father and uncle, have been accusing the Siddaramaiah government of playing politics to sully the image of their family.

Kumaraswamy alleged that the Deputy Chief Minister, D. K. Shivakumar, was behind the release of the controversial videos, and in the process compromised the identities of the victims concerned. The Siddaramaiah government, in particular Shivakumar, have rubbished these charges.

Political analysts quote the Supreme Court judgement delivered on March 4 this year, on the privileges of MPs and MLAs. They state that according to this order legislators cannot claim immunity for actions which do not come under the purview of “Parliamentary functions.”

The seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice, D. Y. Chandrachud, unanimously ruled that Members of Parliament and state Assemblies could not claim privileges and immunities which were not related to the functioning of the House. In other words, the order emphasised that lawmakers were subject to the same laws as the people they represented.

The apex court said that "the burden of satisfying that a privilege exists and that it is necessary for the House to collectively discharge its function lies with the person or body claiming the privilege.

“The Houses of Parliament or legislatures, and the committees are not islands which act as enclaves shielding those inside from the application of ordinary laws. The lawmakers are subject to the same law that the law-making body enacts for the people it governs and claims to represent.”

Significantly, the judgement reversed the 1998 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) bribery case order which protected “bribe-taking “ lawmakers from prosecution, going by the privileges and immunities enjoyed by them for anything said or any vote cast inside the House.

The March 4 2024 order stated that the purpose of immunity was to create institutions where deliberations, views and counterviews could be expressed freely, leading to a democratic and peaceful social transformation.

The apex court held that immunity provided through the law was subject to limitations. The freedom of speech in Parliament “would be subject to the provisions that regulate its procedure.” Accordingly, the law provided immunity only in instances to carry out essential functions of the House.

Therefore, the privilege of an individual member only extended in so far as it aided the House to function and without which it would not be able to carry out its duties, collectively.

Further, it said that, "the burden of satisfying that a privilege exists and that it is necessary for the House to collectively discharge its function lies with the person or body claiming the privilege. The Houses of Parliament or legislatures, and the committees are not islands which act as enclaves shielding those inside from the application of ordinary laws.

“The lawmakers are subject to the same law that the law-making body enacts for the people it governs and claims to represent."

Meanwhile, according to the Association for Democratic Rights, in another judgement of July 10,2013, the apex court stated that if a sitting MP/MLA was convicted of an offence (not only charged) then he/she would be disqualified immediately and the seat would be declared as vacant.

The SC order followed writ petitions by Lily Thomas and S. N. Shukla of Lok Prahari. These judgements should, hopefully, give some confidence to the victims that they would get justice and Prajwal, if found guilty, would not go scot free.

At the same time ,according to ‘The News Minute’, many activists were dismayed to learn that Prajwal’s father, H. D. Revanna, was granted bail by the Special Court in two cases relating to alleged kidnapping and sexual harassment, early this month. The activists fear that the release of the powerful JD-S leader could hamper the ensuing investigation.

Meanwhile, breaking his silence over the alleged involvement of his grandson in the sex scandal ex-PM Deve Gowda said that if the charges against Prajwal are proved, he should be given the harshest punishment. He urged his grandson to return to the country and surrender before the police.

Latest News