Bribery Not Protected By Legislative Privileges; No Immunity For MPs/MLAs Taking Bribe For Vote/Speech In Legislature : Supreme Court

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment which held that members of parliament and legislative assemblies could claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in contemplation of a vote or speech in the legislature. The latest verdict, setting aside the earlier ruling, was handed out by a seven-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.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 an appeal by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Sita Soren who was accused of accepting a bribe for a 2012 Rajya Sabha vote. She claimed immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, but the Jharkhand High Court dismissed her plea, leading to the challenge in the Supreme Court. After a two-day-long hearing, the seven-judge bench reserved its verdict in October last year.Today, the constitution bench held that a member of parliament or the state legislature cannot claim immunity from prosecution on charge of bribery in a criminal court by virtue of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, observing -"We disagree with and overrule the judgment of the majority on this aspect. We have concluded that first, the doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law. A larger bench of this court may reconsider a previous decision in appropriate cases bearing in mind the tests which have been formulated by this court. The judgment in PV Narasihma Rao which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of a legislature who has allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or making a speech has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy. There is a grave danger of this court allowing the error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered."The apex court also noted that unlike the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, India does not have 'ancient and undoubted privileges' vested after a struggle between the Parliament and the monarch. Privileges in pre-independence India were governed by statute in the face of a reluctant colonial government. This statutory privilege transitioned into a constitutional privilege after the commencement of the Constitution. However, a legislator cannot claim immunity from prosecution on charges of bribery for a vote or a speech by relying on these constitutional provisions since it fails to fulfil the two-fold test of first, being tethered to the collective functioning of the House, and second, being necessary for the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator. The bench also added -"Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution seek to sustain an environment where debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature. This purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a particular manner because of an act of bribery...Bribery is not rendered immune under Articles 105 or 194 because a member engaging in bribery indulges in a criminal act which is not essential for the function of casting a vote or giving a speech in the legislature. Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life...We hold that bribery is not protected by Parliamentary privileges."It also held that the question of whether a claim to privilege in a particular case conforms to the Constitution is amenable to judicial review. Offence of bribery complete the moment illegal gratification is takenThe Court held that the offence of bribery as per the Prevention of Corruption Act is complete the moment the illegal gratification is taken and it is immaterial whether the legislator votes or gives a speech later in the house in terms of the bribe."The offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the aggrieved action and is crystallised on the exchange of illegal gratification. It does not matter whether the vote is cast in the aggrieved direction or if the vote is cast at all. The offence of bribery is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe," the judgment authored by CJI DY Chandrachud stated.The Court also held that the PV Narasimha judgment resulted in a paradoxical situation where a legislator, who accepts a bribe and votes accordingly is protected whereas a legislator, who despite taking a bribe votes independently is prosecuted. This interpretation is against the letter and spirit of Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.Corruption by legislators erodes the foundation of democracyThe judgment stated ...

Bribery Not Protected By Legislative Privileges; No Immunity For MPs/MLAs Taking Bribe For Vote/Speech In Legislature : Supreme Court

Awstika Das

Tags