The Supreme Court (SC) of India, in a landmark judgment, ruled that members of Parliament (MPs) and members of legislative assemblies (MLAs) cannot claim any immunity from criminal prosecution for accepting bribes to cast a vote or make a speech in the House in a particular way on March 04, 2024. The seven-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, unanimously overruled the judgment given in the P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State (CBI/SPE) (1998) which had previously ruled that legislators enjoyed immunity from criminal proceedings in matters connected to their vote and speech in Parliament and legislative assemblies of states.
Additionally, the ruling reaffirmed the principles set in the State of Kerala vs K. Ajith (2021) case, where the SC observed, “Privileges and immunities are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general law of the land, particularly in this case, the criminal law which governs the action of every citizen”. To claim an exemption from the application of criminal law would betray the trust which is impressed on the character of elected representatives as the makers and enactors of the law.
Background: Cases that Shaped the Ruling
The SC judgment, removing immunity for legislators accepting bribes, is built on several landmark cases. These cases set legal precedents on corruption, legislative privileges, and transparency in voting.
In the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) bribery case and P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State case (1998), the SC ruled that MPs who accepted bribes were immune from prosecution if they followed through on their bribe agreement by voting or speaking in Parliament. This ruling was based on the interpretation of Article 105(2) of the Constitution.
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith (2021) case involved Kerala MLAs accused of vandalising the state assembly in 2015. They argued that their actions were part of legislative proceedings and should be protected under Article 194. However, the SC ruled that legislative privileges do not extend to illegal acts, such as violence, corruption, or bribery. It emphasised that privileges cannot be used as an excuse to break the law.
In Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006) case, the SC upheld the practice of open ballots in the Rajya Sabha elections, ruling that legislators do not have an absolute right to secrecy in voting. The SC made it clear that a legislator’s vote is a public duty, not a personal right, transparency in voting is necessary to prevent corruption, and bribery and undue influence compromise democracy.
The 2024 Case that Sparked the Ruling
The matter of ‘bribe for vote’ against a legislator came up again. In 2012, Sita Soren, an MLA from the JMM, had been accused of accepting a bribe to cast her vote in favour of an independent candidate in the Rajya Sabha elections that year. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a bribery case against her after probe. She filed a plea before the High Court (HC) of Jharkhand seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against her claiming legal immunity under Article 194 (2) of the Constitution.
The Jharkhand HC dismissed her plea in 2014, prompting her to move to the top court seeking relief. In 2014, a two-judge bench of the SC heard the matter and referred it to a three-judge bench. In 2019, the three-judge bench of the SC, comprising the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Abdul Nazeer, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, heard the appeal and found that the decision in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case (1998) directly dealt with the case. The bench took note of the fact that the 1998 Verdict was decided by a narrow margin (a 3 : 2 split among the five judges) and found that the case needed to be decided by a larger bench, considering the matter to be substantial and of general public importance.
In September 2023, a five-judge bench of the SC, headed by CJI Chandrachud, observed that the view expressed by the majority in the 1998 Narasimha Rao case was lacking in correctness, as far as the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) was concerned. Subsequently, the five-judge bench referred the matter to be heard by a larger bench, recognising the issue to one that concerned the polity. The apex court noted that the motive behind legislative privileges was not to place the members of the legislature on a pedestal in terms of immunity from the application of the general criminal law of the land.
Legislators’ Immunity from Prosecution as per Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution of India
Article 105 under Part V of the Constitution deals with the powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof. 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.” Essentially, this provision shields MPs from any legal action for any statement made or act done in the course of their duties. For example, there cannot be any defamation suit against an MP for any statement made in the House. Additionally, even non-members such as the Attorney General of India or a minister who is a not a member but speaks in the House, are covered under this provision.
For members of state legislature of states, the corresponding article is Article 194 which deals with the powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof. According to Article 194 (2), “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”.
What are Legislative Privileges?
Legislative privileges are special rights, immunities, and exemptions enjoyed by the two Houses of Parliament and the legislatures of states, their committees, and their members. The Constitution of India has also extended these privileges to those persons who are entitled to speak and take part in the proceedings of a House or any of its committees, for example, the Attorney General of India.
The origin of legislative privileges can be traced to the time when the Charter Act, 1833 added a fourth member to the Governor General’s Council. The Government of India Act, 1935 provided for the freedom of speech in the legislature to its members. Today, some of the privileges of Parliament, their committees and their members are specified in the Constitution. The main articles of the Indian Constitution dealing with parliamentary privileges are Article 105 and Article 122 whereas for the legislatures of states, there are Article 194 and Article 212. Article 105 says that “there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament”. Article 122 guarantees, “The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.” Article 194 provides for “the freedom of speech for the members of state legislatures”. Article 212 guarantees, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislatures of a state shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.” Article 361 provides immunity to the president and governors from legal proceedings during their tenure for official actions. Section 135A of the civil procedure code provides immunity to legislators from arrest under civil processes during legislative sessions and for a specified period before and after the session.
These privileges are considered as special provisions and have an overriding effect in conflict. The purpose behind granting these privileges was to ensure that the MPs and MLAs can perform their duties properly without any hindrance–essential for democratic functioning of the legislature. Without these privileges, the House can neither maintain their authority, dignity, and honour nor can protect their members from any obstruction in the discharge of their parliamentary responsibilities.
However, the behaviour and speech of the members are regulated by the rules of the House. Legislative privileges do not allow unquestioned latitude for the members to do as they please. Rather, it is available to individual members only in so far as they are necessary for the House to perform its functions freely without any hindrance.
Overturning the P.V. Narasimha Rao Judgment: Supreme Court Observations
The seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, constituted to examine the correctness of the verdict given in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case (1998), found that the judgment was paradoxical in the sense that a legislator is conferred immunity when they accept a bribe and follow through by voting in the agreed direction. However, if a legislator agrees to accept a bribe but eventually decides to vote independently, they will be prosecuted.
The minority opinion in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case (which had a 3 : 2 split verdict) had argued against extending the immunity granted under Articles 105(2) or 194(2) to cases concerning bribery allegations for making a speech or voting in a particular manner in the House. However, the majority of the judges, though conscious of the seriousness of the offence of bribe for vote, chose to let the immunity under the aforementioned provisions continue unabated. It was because, in their opinion, any judicial posturing might lead to a narrow construction of the constitutional provisions, resulting in the impairment of the guarantee of “parliamentary participation and debate”.
The Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that the purpose of guaranteeing parliamentary privileges under Articles 105 and 194 was to sustain an environment in which debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature. However, such a purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner following an act of bribery. The court went on to recommend a two-fold test for a claim to any of the parliamentary privileges. First, the claim to any privilege must be incidental to the collective functioning of the House. Second, its relevance must be related to the discharge of essential duties of a legislator.
CJI Chandrachud reasoned while overruling the verdict, the judgment of the majority in P.V. Narasimha Rao (supra), which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature who has allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or speaking has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy. There is a grave danger of this Court allowing an error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered. The apex court envisaged that claim to parliamentary privileges have to conform to constitutional parameters.
“Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194(2) 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,” the verdict further elucidated. The court emphasised that the offence of bribery is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe, whether or not it is followed up by voting or making a speech in the manner wanted by the giver of the bribe. Equally, the place where the bribe was offered or received did not matter. The verdict further asserted that the first explanation to Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 strengthens such an interpretation since it expressly states “obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage” shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by a public servant has not been improper.
There arose the question of whether the intervention of the apex court was warranted since corruption charges against a legislator are treated as breach of privilege by the House resulting in punishment. The court reasoned that although the court’s jurisdiction to prosecute a criminal offence operated separately from the authority of the House to take action for a breach of discipline, “the potential of misuse against individual members of the legislature is neither enhanced nor diminished by recognising the jurisdiction of the court to prosecute a member of the legislature who is alleged to have indulged in an act of bribery”.
On the question of the application of legislative privileges to the Rajya Sabha elections, the court clarified that the principles enunciated by the verdict regarding legislative privileges will apply equally to elections to the Rajya Sabha as well as elections to appoint the president and vice-president of the country. Accordingly, it overruled the observations in the Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India and others (2006) case, which held that elections to the Rajya Sabha are not proceedings of the legislature but a mere exercise of franchise and, therefore, fall outside the ambit of parliamentary privileges under Article 194.
Conclusion
The verdict holds immense importance for representative democracy. It was rightly highlighted by the CJI that “corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian Parliamentary democracy. It is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy”. Though it took nearly twenty-five years for the judiciary to correct a mistake but the verdict is taken in right direction for the future of Indian democracy. With legislative conduct of the members touching new lows and money power making deeper inroads into the temple of democracy, the verdict was highly called for. The judgment will strengthen parliamentary democracy in the country and create a responsible polity in tune with the aspirations of the Constitution of India.
© Spectrum Books Pvt. Ltd.
