Rajya Sabha's Role Part Of Basic Structure, Rajya Sabha Elections Protected By Legislative Privileges Under Article 194 : Supreme Court

This was part of a broader ruling overturning the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment on parliamentary immunity in the context of bribery charges against legislators. This latest verdict, delivered on Monday morning by a seven-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, states that members of parliament and legislative assemblies cannot claim immunity from prosecution on charges of bribery related to votes or speeches in the legislature.

The 1998 case was doubted in an appeal by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Sita Soren who was accused of accepting a bribe for a 2012 Rajya Sabha vote.

Bench rejects attorney-general's argument that vote for Rajya Sabha election not 'legislative vote' within Article 194(2)

During the hearing, Attorney-General R Venkataramani had argued that the PV Narasimha Rao dictum would not apply to Soren's appeal. In other words, a vote to elect a member to the Rajya Sabha in the lobby of the state legislature would not amount to a 'legislative vote' and as such, would not come within the protective cover of Article 194(2). In support of this contention, the top law officer had relied on the 2006 Kuldip Nayar judgment where the court had held that elections to fill seats in the Rajya Sabha are not proceedings of the legislature within the meaning of Article 194 but a mere exercise of franchise.

Rebutting this argument, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran had stressed the distinction between a 'house of the legislature' and the legislature itself. He also doubted the respondents' reliance on Kuldip Nayar (2006) in this context, saying that the portion relied on only formed the court's obiter dictum.

Ultimately, the attorney-general's argument did not find favour with the seven-judge constitution bench. In the verdict delivered today, the Supreme Court has clarified that even votes cast in the lobby of the state legislature would be within the remit of Article 194(2) of the Constitution.

Parliamentary processes not taking place on the floor of the house also covered by parliamentary privilege: Supreme Court

The court's reasoning delved into the constitutional provisions governing this matter, particular Articles 80 (composition of the Council of States) and 194 (powers, privileges, etc., of the house of legislatures and of the members and committees thereof) of the Constitution.

Under Article 80 of the Constitution, the power to vote for members of the parliament's upper house is solely entrusted to elected members of the state legislative assemblies. Therefore, the act of voting for the Rajya Sabha is an integral part of their powers and responsibilities, the bench observed.

Then, the court proceeded to examine whether the language of Article 194(2) placed any restriction on such a vote being protected by parliamentary privilege. Analysing the language of the provision, the bench noted a distinction between the terms 'legislature' and 'house of such a legislature' within the provision. Accepting Ramachandran's argument, it observed that while the term 'legislature' refers to the wider concept under Article 168, comprising the governor and the houses of the legislature, 'house of legislature' specifically refers to the juridical body summoned by the governor under Article 174. The former functions indefinitely and continues to exist even when the governor has not summoned the house.

“The first limb of Article 194(2) pertains to “anything said or any vote given by him in the legislature or any committee thereof”. However, in the second limb, the phrase used is “in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a house of such a legislature of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.” There is a clear departure from the term 'legislature' which is used in the first limb, to use the term 'house of such a legislature' in the second limb of the provision. It is clear, therefore, that the provision creates a distinction between the two.”

In this context, the bench highlighted parliamentary processes, such as ad hoc committees and standing committees, that do not necessarily take place on the floor of the house. These processes, which include elections to the Rajya Sabha and elections for the president and vice-president, nevertheless are essential to the functioning of the legislature and parliamentary democracy as a whole.

There appears to be no reason, the court reasoned, why the deliberations that take place in such committees would not be protected by parliamentary privilege. Similarly, there appears to no restriction either in the text of Article 105(2) and Article 194(2), which pushes such elections to the Rajya Sabha or for the president or the vice president outside of the protection provided by the provisions.

Such elections may be conducted within the precincts of the legislature even when the parliament or the state legislative assemblies are not in session, the court noted. It then added –

“However, they are an integral part of the powers and responsibilities of elected members of the parliament and state legislative assemblies. The vote for such elections is given in the legislature or parliament, which is sufficient to invoke the protection of the first limb of Articles 105(2) and 194(2). Such processes are significant to the functioning of the legislature and in the broader structure of parliamentary democracy.”

Bench clarifies Kuldip Nayar judgment on the aspect of Rajya Sabha elections falling within ambit of Article 194(2)

Next, addressing the observation made by the five-judge bench in Kuldip Nayar, the Supreme Court has now clarified that voting for elections to the Rajya Sabha falls within the ambit of Article 194(2).

“Mr Raju Ramachandran, senior counsel on behalf of the appellant has argued that the observations in Kuldip Nayar do not constitute the ratio decidendi of the judgment and are obiter. It is trite law that this court is only bound by the ratio of the previous decision. There may be some merit to this contention. However, in any event, this being a combination of seven judges of this court, it is clarified that voting for elections to the Rajya Sabha falls within the ambit of Article 194(2). On all other counts, the decision of the constitution bench in Kuldip Nayar remains good law.”

Rajya Sabha's role part of basic structure, elections to the parliament's upper house requires utmost protection: Supreme Court

Underscoring the crucial role played by Rajya Sabha elections within the framework of the Constitution, the court highlighted the significance of protecting the free and fearless exercise of franchise by legislative assembly members while electing members of the parliament's upper house.

It noted that not only did the Rajya Sabha play an integral part in the functioning of our democracy, but its role constitutes a fundamental part of the basic structure of the Constitution itself.

"The Rajya Sabha or the Council of States performs an integral function in the working of our democracy and the role played by the Rajya Sabha constitutes a part of the basic structure of the Constitution"

“The role played by elected members of the state legislative assemblies in electing members of the Rajya Sabha under Article 80 is significant and requires utmost protection to ensure that the vote is exercised freely and without fear of legal persecution. The free and fearless exercise of franchise by elected members of the legislative assembly while electing members of the Rajya Sabha is undoubtedly necessary for the dignity and efficient functioning of the state legislative assembly. Any other interpretation belies the text of Article 194(2) and the purpose of parliamentary privilege.”

The protection afforded by Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution have been colloquially referred to as 'parliamentary privilege' and not 'legislative privilege' for a reason, the court emphasised. Finally, it clarified that this privilege is not limited to law-making on the floor of the house but extends to other powers and responsibilities of elected members, even when the house is not in session.

“It cannot be restricted to only law-making on the floor of the house but extends to other powers and responsibilities of elected members, which take place in the legislature or parliament, even when the house is not sitting.”

These crucial observations by the Supreme Court come as a part of a judgment overruling the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao verdict. In the 1998 case, a five-judge bench held by a 3:2 majority that members of parliament and state legislatures were immune from prosecution in bribery cases related to their speech or vote in the house in enjoyment of the parliamentary privileges conferred by Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, provided they upheld their end of the bargain for which they received a bribe.

This verdict was doubted in JMM leader Sita Soren's appeal, which paved way for this recent constitution bench judgment by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.

Other stories about the judgment can be read here.

Case Details

Sita Soren v. Union of India | Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Click here to read the judgment