Topic 1: Prosecution against legislators in bribery cases

Why in news?

• In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) cannot claim any immunity from prosecution for accepting bribes to cast a vote or make a speech in the House in a particular fashion.

What’s the final judgement?

• A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud unanimously overruled its 1998 judgment in P.V Narasimha Rao v. State and opened the doors for law enforcement agencies to initiate prosecution against legislators in bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act).

What is Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution?

• Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee. Similarly, Article 194(2) grants protection to MLAs.

What was the case?

• Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), faced allegations of accepting a bribe to vote for a specific candidate during the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections.

• Following this, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet against her. In 2014, the Jharkhand High Court rejected Ms. Soren’s request to quash the criminal proceedings, which she based on her purported legal immunity under Article 194(2). Consequently, an appeal was lodged in the Supreme Court.

• In September 23, 2014, a two-judge Bench referred the matter to a three-judge Bench. In March 2019, the three-judge panel, led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, observed that the decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao directly addressed the case. Given the narrow margin of the decision (a 3:2 split among the five judges), it was referred to a larger bench, highlighting the issue’s “substantial and general public importance”.

• On September 20, 2023, a five-judge Bench led by CJI Chandrachud expressed doubts regarding the correctness of the majority view in P.V. Narasimha and consequently referred the matter to a seven-judge Bench.

• The Bench acknowledged that the issue is significant for our polity, emphasizing that parliamentary privileges should not exempt legislators from the general application of criminal law.

What was the final verdict of the judgement?

• The Supreme Court Judgment pronounced that bribery is not shielded by Article 105 and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because engaging in bribery constitutes a criminal act separate from the essential processes of casting a vote or determining how a vote should be cast.

• This principle also extends to bribery associated with speeches in the House or within a committee.

Topic 2: P.V Narasimha Rao Vs State

Why in News?

• In the case of Sita Soren vs Union of India, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment by unanimously overturning its 1998 ruling in P.V Narasimha Rao v. State.
• This decision opened the path for law enforcement agencies to commence prosecution against legislators in bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act).

What was the case?

• The P.V. Narasimha Rao ruling involves the 1993 JMM bribery case against JMM chief and former Union Minister Shibu Soren.
• Sibu Soren, along with some of his party members, faced accusations of accepting bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion targeting the then P.V. Narasimha Rao government.
• Two of the judges on that five judge Constitution Bench expressed the view that the immunity provided under Articles 105(2) or 194(2) couldn’t be expanded to cover cases involving bribery allegations related to speeches or voting in the House.
• Conversely, the majority of the judges noted that while they recognized the gravity of the offense, a narrow interpretation of the constitutional provisions shouldn’t impair the guarantee of parliamentary participation and debate.

What was the implication of the case?

• The majority judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State, provided immunity from prosecution to a legislator accused of engaging in bribery for voting or speaking, carried significant implications for public interest, integrity in public service, and parliamentary democracy as a whole.