New Delhi
In a landmark judgment, a seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Monday held that lawmakers, including MPs and MLAs, cannot claim immunity and are liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) if they receive monetary benefits for their votes and speech in Parliament or Assembly.
In doing so, the apex court overruled its own 1998 verdict in the PV Narasimha Rao case.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, unanimously overruled the 1998 verdict delivered by a five-judge bench in the JMM bribery case by which MPs and MLAs were granted immunity from prosecution for taking a bribe to make a speech or vote in the legislature.
CJI Chandrachud, who pronounced the judgment, said bribery is not protected by parliamentary privileges and the interpretation of the 1998 verdict is contrary to Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.
“An MP/MLA can’t claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with the vote or speech in the legislative house,” he said.
Also, the PV Narasimha Rao judgment, the Chief Justice said, results in a paradoxical situation in which a legislator who accepts a bribe and votes accordingly is protected whereas a legislator who votes independently despite taking a bribe is prosecuted.
“We disagree with the judgment in PV Narasimha (case). The judgment in PV Narasimha which grants immunity to legislator for allegedly bribery for casting a vote or speech has wide ramifications and is overruled,” the CJI said.
The PV Narasimha Rao case relates to a no-confidence motion against his government in July 1993. The minority government had survived with a slim margin of 265 votes in favour and 251 against. However, allegations surfaced that legislators of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha namely Shibu Soren, Suraj Mandal, Simon Marandi and Shailendra Mahto had taken bribes to vote in support of the Rao government.
The SC said corruption or bribery by a member of legislature erodes probity in public life and accepting bribes itself constitutes the offence. “To give any privilege unconnected to the functioning of Parliament or legislature will lead to creating a class that enjoys unchecked exemptions from the operation of law of the land,” it said.
Parliamentary privileges are essentially related to the House collectively and necessary for its functioning, the seven-judge bench said.
“Elections to Rajya Sabha or to the office of the President/Vice President will also come under the ambit of Constitutional provisions applicable to parliamentary privilege,” the Supreme Court said.
While Article 105(2) confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee, Article 194(2) grants similar protection to MLAs.
As for today’s landmark judgment, it arose out of a plea filed by Sita Soren, sister-in-law of former Jharkhand Chief Minister (CM) Hemant Soren, who was recently arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case linked to an alleged land scam. Sita was accused of taking a bribe to vote for a particular candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha Elections and a complaint was subsequently filed with the Chief Election Commissioner seeking a CBI probe into the case.
Sita was charged with the offences of criminal conspiracy and bribery under the IPC and for criminal misconduct by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Jharkhand High Court ruled that Sita Soren had not cast her vote for the person who had offered her the bribe.
After an adverse ruling by the Jharkhand High Court, she had moved the Supreme Court and sought that the decision in the Narasimha Rao case should be interpreted broadly so that politicians can speak their minds without fearing legal action.
PMSPEAK
Hailing the verdict, Prime Minister Narendra Modi took to his X handle to say: “SWAGATAM! A great judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system.”
