No immunity for MPs, MLAs taking bribes: How SC overturned 1998 verdict

The Supreme Court on Monday rendered a landmark verdict.

The highest court in the land ruled that MPs and MLAs who take bribes to vote on a speech in Parliament do not have immunity.

The judgment, delivered by a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, overturned the court’s 1998 verdict.

“Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life,” the CJI Chandrachud said while pronouncing the verdict on Monday.

The bench also comprising justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra delivered a unanimous verdict.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has praised the decision as a ‘great judgment.’

More from Explainers

How ChatGPT is becoming everyone’s BFF and why that’s dangerous This Week in Explainers: How recovering from Gen-Z protests is a Himalayan task for Nepal

SWAGATAM!

A great judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system.https://t.co/GqfP3PMxqz

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) March 4, 2024

But what happened in 1998? And what do we know about the verdict?

Let’s take a closer look:

What happened in 1998?

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

Ghaziabad woman dead, pilgrims attacked in bus… How Nepal’s Gen-Z protests turned into a living hell for Indian tourists

Were bodyguards involved in Charlie Kirk’s shooting? The many conspiracies surrounding the killing

The case entitled PV Narasimha Rao vs State involved former Jharkhand chief minister and ex-Union minister Shibu Soren and four other Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) party MPs.

The case has its roots in a no-confidence motion moved against the PV Narasimha Rao government in 1993, as per NDTV.

The minority government led by Rao survived by the barest of margins – 265 to 251.

Soren and the four party MPs all voted in favour of the government.

But then allegations of bribery against Soren and other MPs emerged.

The CBI then registered a case against Soren and four other JMM Lok Sabha MPs.

However, the Supreme Court quashed the case.

According to News18, the five-judge bench in a 3:2 verdict ruled that Soren and the MPs enjoyed immunity from prosecution under Articles 105(2) and 194 of the Constitution.

These two articles deal with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs in the Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies.

Article 105 (2) states, “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 or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.”

Article 194(2) says, “No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.”

Issue flares up again

The issue then flared up again in 2019.

This time, a bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing an appeal filed by Sita Soren.

Sita, a JMM MLA from Jama, is the daughter-in-law of Shibu.

Sita was accused of taking bribes to vote for a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha election 2012.

As per Odisha TV, the CBI filed a case against Sita in connection with the alleged bribe.

But Sita claimed that the constitutional provision granting lawmakers immunity from prosecution, which saw her father-in-law being let off the hook in the JMM bribery scandal, also applied to her.

Sita in 2014 sought the case to be quashed by the Jharkhand High Court.

However, when the court turned down her plea, Sita approached the apex court.

The Gogoi-led bench then referred the matter to a larger three-judge bench.

The court said the matter “wide ramifications” and was of “substantial public importance”.

According to Indian Express, a three-judge bench in March 2019 heard the appeal.

The bench, noting that the case had to do with the 1998 ruling, referred the matter to an even larger bench.

The case was ultimately referred to a seven-judge bench of the apex court.

Supreme Court agrees to reconsider judgment

The apex court on 20 September, 2023 agreed to reconsider its 1998 judgement, saying it was an important issue having a significant bearing on the “morality of polity”.

The top court, in the course of the hearing, had said it would examine whether the immunity granted to lawmakers from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in Parliament and state legislatures extends to them even if criminality is attached to their actions.

During the arguments, the Union government had submitted that bribery can never be a subject matter of immunity and a parliamentary privilege is not meant to place a lawmaker above the law.

The seven-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud had reserved its judgment in the matter on 5 October.

Then, on Monday, the court ruled that MPs and MLAs taking bribes to vote or make a speech in the House are not immune from prosecution.

The bench held that contrary to the ruling of the five-judge bench in the 1998 case, bribery is not protected by parliamentary privileges under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.

While pronouncing the verdict, the CJI said Article 105 of the Constitution seeks to sustain an environment where deliberations by the lawmakers in the House and this atmosphere is vitiated when a member is bribed to deliver a speech.

“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,” the bench said as per The Week.

“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 added.

“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.”

Justice Chandrachud said the privileges claimed must have a nexus to the collective functioning of the House and must have a relationship with the essential functions of a legislator which he or she has to discharge.

“An individual member of the legislature cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity under Articles 105 and 194 from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with a vote or speech in the legislature," it said.

“It (corruption and bribery) is destructive of the aspirations and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy,” the CJI said.

According to the court, Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution seek to sustain an environment in which debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature.

“This purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner because of an act of bribery,” the apex court said.

“Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast. The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a committee,” it said.

“In the course of this judgment while analysing majority and minority decision of Narsimha Rao judgment, we disagree and overrule the judgment that parliamentarian can claim immunity,” Chandrachud was quoted as saying by Odisha TV.

He further said, “…The judgment of the majority in Narsimha Rao which grants immunity to legislators has a grave danger and thus overruled.”

“Members of the legislature and persons involved in the work of the committees of the legislature must be able to exercise their free will and conscience to enrich the functionings of the House,” it said.

“This is exactly what is taken away when a member is induced to vote in a certain way, not because of their belief or position on an issue, but because of a bribe taken by the member,” the bench added.

“The offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the agreed action and crystallised on the exchange of the legal gratification. It does not matter whether a vote is cast in the agreed 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 court said as per Indian Express.

“The doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law” and “a larger bench of the court may reconsider a previous decision in appropriate cases bearing in mind the test which have been formulated in the precedence of this court,” the bench concluded.

With inputs from agencies