Karnataka High Court to Review C T Ravi's Legislative Immunity Claim in FIR Case Against Minister Laxmi Hebbalkar

Karnataka BJP MLC C T Ravi has approached the Karnataka High Court to dismiss an FIR filed against him by the Belagavi police. The FIR was lodged due to allegedly inappropriate comments made against Minister Laxmi Hebbalkar in the Legislative Council. Ravi's legal team argues that he is protected by Article 194 of the Constitution, which grants legislators immunity for statements made within the legislature.

Senior counsel Prabhuling Navadgi, representing Ravi, presented arguments before Justice M Nagaprasanna. He stated that since the remarks were made in a legislative setting, neither the police nor external agencies have jurisdiction to investigate. Navadgi highlighted that Article 194 provides legislators with complete immunity for statements made in the House and mentioned that the issue had already been addressed by the Chairman of the Legislative Council.

Legislative Immunity and Legal Challenges

The State opposed this stance, arguing that legislative immunity under Article 194 is not absolute. They referenced Supreme Court rulings to support their claim that such protection does not cover all situations, especially those involving criminal allegations. Justice Nagaprasanna noted that it is essential to determine if Ravi's comments were related to his legislative duties.

The court will also examine whether Article 194's immunity is absolute or if it has limitations, particularly in cases involving alleged criminal acts. The bench has decided to notify Hebbalkar, who filed the complaint, and will continue hearing the case on February 20.

Arrest and Bail Proceedings

Ravi was taken into custody by Belagavi police on December 19, 2024. However, he received interim bail the following day after the High Court questioned the necessity of his arrest. The court's decision to grant bail came amid ongoing discussions about legislative privileges and their scope.

Navadgi argued that the criminal case contradicts the privilege granted under Article 194. "The case against me is based on something I said in the legislature, and the Chairman has already taken cognizance and given a ruling," Navadgi contended. The legal proceedings continue as both sides present their arguments regarding legislative immunity and its boundaries.

The High Court's examination of this case will focus on whether Ravi's remarks were connected to his role as a legislator. The outcome could have implications for how legislative immunity is interpreted in future cases involving similar allegations.