On Monday, a seven-judge Supreme Court bench overturned its 1998 ruling that granted lawmakers immunity after receiving bribes for votes or speeches, emphasizing that corruption in legislatures undermines integrity in public life. The Chief Justice of India, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, led the bench, declaring that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) will no longer have protection from prosecution for accepting bribes related to speeches or votes in Parliament and state legislatures.
The bench, including Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra, presented a unanimous verdict. It held that individual legislators cannot claim privilege to seek immunity under Articles 105 and 194 from bribery charges related to votes or speeches in the legislature. The bench emphasized that corruption and bribery significantly impact public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy.
Article 105(2) provides MPs immunity from proceedings in any court for their statements or votes in Parliament or its committees. A similar provision for members of state legislatures is found under Article 194(2). The bench clarified that bribery is not shielded under these articles, stating that engaging in bribery is a crime unrelated to the essential duties of casting a vote or making a speech.
The court highlighted that bribery offenses are not dependent on the performance of the agreed action but crystallize upon the exchange of illegal gratification. The principles outlined by the judgment regarding parliamentary privilege are extended to elections for Rajya Sabha, president, and vice-president.
In September, the court decided to re-examine the 1998 judgment in the PV Narasimha Rao Vs State (CBI) case. This decision followed its reliance on a former Jharkhand assembly member, Sita Soren, who allegedly accepted a bribe for voting in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. The 1998 ruling, arising from the JMM bribery scandal, granted immunity to lawmakers who voted or asked questions after receiving bribes but not to those who failed to fulfill their end of the bargain.
The seven-judge bench, in October last year, reserved its verdict on the correctness of the 1998 ruling. The Union government urged the bench to nullify the precedential value of the 1998 judgment, emphasizing that acts of bribery outside legislative houses are prosecutable under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. The government proposed the creation of an “speech and vote watch” in-house committee as an alternative to judicially mandated guidelines.
The court was urged to declare the 1998 judgment “per incuriam” (rendered in ignorance of a statute) and limit its ruling to stating that the judgment should not serve as precedent for situations involving lawmaker bribery. The government argued against issuing inflexible norms, stating that the formulation of enforceable norms should be left to Parliament and state legislatures. The court was also reminded of Section 7 of the PC Act, which deems the offense of bribery independent of parliamentary proceedings.
Opposing a review of the 1998 judgment, the government maintained that constitutional privileges and immunities protect lawmakers from political persecution. The amicus curiae and an intervenor supported the view that legislators should not enjoy immunity for accepting bribes.
You might also be interested in – AAP candidate declared Chandigarh mayor as Supreme Court overturns “unlawful” election
