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

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) declared that Rajya Sabha elections are within the remit of Article 194(2) of the Constitution, clarifying its 2006 Kuldip Nayar judgment. Noting that the role of the parliament's upper house was a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it held that parliamentary privileges under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) could not be restricted to only legislative activities on the floor of the house but also extended to other powers and responsibilities of elected members taking place in the legislative body even when the house is not in session. 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 CourtThe 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...

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

Awstika Das

The constitution bench has clarified the 2006 Kuldip Nayar judgment where the court had rules that Rajya Sabha elections were not proceedings of the legislature within the meaning of Article 194 but a mere exercise of franchise.

Tags