Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Case Against BJP Legislator CT Ravi For Allegedly Abusing Female Congress Leader In State Council

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (May 2) refused to quash a case registered against BJP Legislator CT Ravi booked for allegedly using derogatory words against Congress Legislator Laxmi Hebbalkar inside State Council at Belagavi.

Dismissing Ravi's plea, Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said, "Alleged word spoken, if spoken or gesture made if made against the women, the complainant, certainly outrages her modesty and it above all cannot have any nexus to the functioning of the house or relation to the transaction of the house, no nexus no privilege, petition dismissed.”

A detailed copy of the order is awaited. 

Ravi was arrested on December 19, 2024 under Section 75 and 79 of the BNS, after he moved the High Court questioning his arrest he was directed to be forthwith released on bail. Following which he has moved the court seeking to quash the offence.       .

On February 24 the court had reserved its order on the petition.

Appearing for Ravi, Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi relied on Article 194 (2) of the Constitution of India and said “If somebody speaks something then the Speaker of the house can take extreme steps against the member, he can expel the member or reprimand him. My submission is that a blanket protection is given. According to me, even if something slanderous is spoken which otherwise is a criminal offence, if it is said within the house it will be the house which will take its cognizance and not the police.”

Further he had submitted, “Sub clause (2) of Article 194, gives complete immunity to MLA's for anything said in legislature or any vote given in legislature. Registration of a case against me is based on something said by me in the legislature.”

He had said the question before the court is when a decision having been pronounced by the Chairman of the house can CID revisit the same incident.

To which the court had orally asked “The issue is can anything be spoken or done in the legislature which has no nexus to the issue that is discussed in legislature, can it also attract immunity?"

In reply, Navadgi said, “Article 194 (2) does not make a distinction that it should be in relation to the debate or proceedings; it simply gives immunity.”

He had added “The word in the course of the proceedings in the Article is conspicuously absent. The object is to give blanket protection to a member of the house to any word said in the legislature. The immunity is to allow the member to speak fearlessly.”

Special Public Prosecutor Belliappa had opposed the plea submitting that there are a plethora of Supreme Court cases on the issue raised and it has been considered. It is not an absolute immunity enjoyed by the legislators.

It was said that “Anything and everything done in the Parliament or the Legislature, as the case would be, would not have absolute immunity, but the cases would have qualified immunity.”

It was also submitted that the alleged derogatory word was used not when the session was on and it was on break.

Case title: SRI C T RAVI v/s STATE BY BAGEWADI P S AND OTHERS

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 163

Case No: CRL.P 791/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar)