SC Strikes Down The Impunity Enjoyed by MPs & MLAs in Bribery Cases in a Criminal Court; Says it Erodes The Foundation of Democracy
Image Source: The Tatva
In a monumental unanimous verdict today led by the CJI bench, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court emphatically revoked the immunity held by Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) from prosecution in bribery accusations. They had been enjoying the prerogative since the 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao case, where it was decided that the members were immune to prosecution from bribery cases associated with their speech or vote in the house as per Articles 105 and 194 as long as they complied and acted by the stipulation of the bribe.
Apart from the fact that accepting and giving bribes is in itself a contravention of the law, the true object of the provision is to, as per the Constitution, “ensure that there shall be freedom of speech in the parliament,” which is invalidated when a member of the parliament is compelled to vote in a certain way due to their bribe, which is detrimental to their freedom and beliefs.
The disputed articles allowed certain privileges to members of the parliament; Article 105 said, “No member of parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament.” A similar provision for MLAs is provided under Article 194.
CJI Chandrachud said, “While analyzing the reasoning of the majority & the minority in P.V Narishmarao case, whether by virtue of Article 105 & 194 of the Constitution, the MPs or MLAs can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court, we disagree and overrule the judgment on the aspect.”
Here are some of the conclusions from the Judgment:
- The doctrine of Stare decisis (which binds courts to follow historical cases and precedents while deciding on a similar issue) is not an inflexible rule of law; a larger bench of this Court may reconsider previous decisions in appropriate cases. In the P.V. Narishmarao case, which granted immunity from prosecution, there’s a grave danger of allowing such an error to be perpetuated if such a decision is not reconsidered.
- Privileges in pre-independent India were governed by statutes of a reluctant colonial government, which transitioned into Constitutional privileges after the Constitution came into being.
- A claim to privilege and immunity conforms to the parameter of the Constitution and is receptive to Judicial review.
- An individual legislator cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity under Article 105 & 194 from prosecution in a bribery indictment in connection with a vote or speech in the legislature; such a claim fails to fulfill the two-fold test which requires the collective functioning of the house and is necessary to discharge the essential duties of a legislator.
- Articles 104, 105, 194 seek to sustain an environment in which debate and discourse can happen within the legislature, which is destroyed if a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner because of the bribery.
- Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) & 194(2) because the member engaging in bribery commits a crime not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability on how it should be cast; similar applies to bribery in a house or a committee.
- Corruption and bribery by MPs & MLAs erode the probity in public life, and the potential of misuse against the members of the legislature is neither enhanced nor diminished by recognizing the jurisdiction of the court to prosecute the member of the legislature. Bribery also decays the character of the Constitution and is a threat to parliamentary democracy.
- The interpretation of the P.V. Narasimha Rao case results in a paradoxical outcome where a legislator is conferred immunity when they accept a bribe and follow it through by voting in the required direction. On the other hand, the legislator agrees to accept a bribe and decides to vote independently will be prosecuted; it is thereby, a conflict with the text and purposes of Articles 105 & 194.
The Supreme Court also added that the jurisdiction of the criminal courts is not rescinded from charging and hearing bribery cases against members of the house, just because the Speaker of the House has a similar jurisdiction and further said that the privileges in question are also applicable to President & Vice-President elections.
The immunity question first reached the corridors of the Supreme Court when Sita Soren, the sister-in-law of the former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren, filed an appeal against the High Court order; she was accused of taking a bribe to vote for a certain member back in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections.
The case had first come to Jharkhand High Court which dismissed her plea of quashing the order, noting that she had not held her end of the promise for which she received the bribe.
Moreover, Prime Minister Narendra Modi commended the decision; in a post on X, he said, “Swagatam! A great judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system.”
The case was shifted to a larger bench of the Supreme Court on September 20 last year, which had reserved their Judgment on October 5. The bench also included Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Sanjay Kumar, Manoj Misra, AS Bopanna, P.S Narasimha & MM Sundresh.
Team Profile
- News Writer
- Rahul Tiwari, a law student, possesses a keen interest in politics, movies, music, and the pop culture landscape. Equipped with an unyielding spirit for writing, he navigates through his diverse interests with enthusiasm and dedication.
Latest entries
English10 March 2024Rahul Gandhi to Contest from His Former Seat of Wayanand in the Lok Sabha Elections, Shashi Tharoor to Contest from His Citadel; Everything You Need to Know About Their List
English8 March 2024Being Critical of Kashmir’s Abrogation is not an Offence; SC Quashes Case Against a Kashmiri Professor for Condemning the Scraping of Article 370
English7 March 2024SBI Misses Deadline for Electoral Bonds Disclosure; Opposition Calls It Dubious
English7 March 2024GN Saibaba, Former DU Professor & Scholar, Granted Acquittal from Bombay HC in an Alleged Maoist Case
