Table of Contents
THE CONTEXT: A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court recently declared that parliamentary privilege or immunity will not protect legislators who take bribes to vote or speak in Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies from criminal prosecution. The verdict overturned a 1998 ruling in PV Narasimha Rao Case that granted immunity to lawmakers accepting bribes if they subsequently voted or spoke in the House.
MORE ON THE NEWS:
- The reference came in an appeal filed by JMM leader Sita Soren, who was accused of taking a bribe to vote for a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha elections of 2012.
- Though she later denied culpability on the ground that she voted for the official nominee of her own party, the CBI had filed a chargesheet in the case.
- The Jharkhand High Court had refused to quash the chargesheet, following which she had moved the apex court.
THE SUPREME COURT VERDICT:
- Seven-judge Bench observes that the legislator will face criminal prosecution whether or not he makes a speech or votes in favour of the bribe-giver. The offence of bribery is complete on the acceptance of the money or on the agreement to accept money being concluded.
- Privileges regarding freedom of speech: The bench reasoned that the freedom of speech and expression, which include voting in the House, and attendant immunities granted to legislators under Articles 105 and 194 did not extend to giving or taking bribes. The judgment said parliamentary immunity would apply only if a legislator acts in furtherance of “fertilising a deliberate, critical and responsive democracy”.
- Two-fold test: A claim for immunity would not survive if it failed this two-fold test and the shield of immunity or parliamentary privilege could be claimed in two circumstances.
1. If the actions of a legislator were meant to enhance the dignity and authority of the House and its members as a collective body.
2. If they were in the exercise of his rights to free speech, protest and freedom from arrest, among others.
- Parallel jurisdiction of Courts and Houses: Criminal courts and Houses of the legislature have parallel jurisdiction over allegations of bribery. One cannot negate the jurisdiction of the other. The jurisdiction exercised by a competent court to prosecute a criminal offence and the authority of the House to take action for a breach of discipline in relation to the acceptance of a bribe by a member of the legislature exist in distinct spheres.
- Voting in Rajya Sabha: The Bench has also held that voting in a Rajya Sabha election, is protected under Article 194 of the Constitution as a privilege. It requires utmost protection for a member to vote freely and without fear of legal persecution.
SEVEN-JUDGE BENCH’S REMARK ON THE 1998 JUDGMENT:
- In overruling the majority verdict in V. Narasimha Rao vs State (1998), the Bench has foregrounded probity as the main aspect of parliamentary functioning.
- The Court has made it clear that parliamentary privilege, enshrined in Article 105 (for MPs) and Article 194 (for State legislators) is aimed at protecting the freedom of speech and independence of the legislators in their functioning in the House and cannot extend to bribery, as it is not essential to the casting of the vote or in deciding how to cast it.
- A key rationale that weighed with the Constitution Bench in 1998 was that parliamentary privilege was essential to protecting members from persecution for anything said or any vote in the House.
- However, the seven-member Bench has concluded that the potential for such misuse is neither enhanced nor diminished by recognising the court’s jurisdiction to prosecute a member for bribery.
IMMUNITY AGAINST BRIBE: RELATED CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
- Parliamentary privileges are the rights and immunities granted to Members of Parliament (MPs) in India, empowering them to execute their duties and functions without hindrance or coercion.
- Article 105(2): This article grants immunity to members of Parliament from court proceedings concerning their actions (speech or votes) in Parliament.
- Article 194(2): Similarly, this article extends immunity to members of state assemblies.
ISSUES ADDRESSED:
- Corruption erodes democracy: Corruption and bribery by members of the legislature erode the very foundation of Indian parliamentary democracy. Bribed lawmakers were destructive to the “aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and create a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive and representative democracy”.
- Disrupt moral principles: When a legislator is influenced to vote not based on their genuine beliefs or stance on an issue, but due to monetary inducements, it undermines probity in public life.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGEMENT:
- Accountability: Bribery charges can be treated by the House as contempt or a breach of privilege, but this does not exclude judicial proceedings. Hence the legislator can be held accountable through both House proceedings and judicial processes. Sita Soren vs Union of India is a significant step towards strengthening legislative accountability and upholding the rule of law.
- Constitutional scrutiny: The ruling underscores the importance of constitutional scrutiny in determining the boundaries of legislative privileges.
- Judicial review: Supreme Court with its recent verdict made clear that Parliament is not the sole judge of its privileges, allowing for judicial review of the House and its members’ actions.
- Moral uprightness: By outlining a clear stance in relation to parliamentary privilege concerning bribery cases the court reaffirms principles of moral uprightness and openness within public life.
THE CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a significant departure from past precedent, affirming the principle that no individual, including legislators, is above the law. This landmark judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and combating corruption, thereby strengthening India’s democratic foundations. The recent judgement of the supreme court to stop bribery will help in strengthening the democracy and parliamentary process.
UPSC PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS
Q. Without Parliament Privileges, Members of Parliament cannot discharge their functions as entrusted upon them by the Constitution. Discuss. (2021)
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION
Q. By asserting the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing claims of parliamentary privilege, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the primacy of constitutional values and accountability in governance. Critically examine the statement in the context of SC judgement ending immunity for legislators taking bribes.
Spread the Word