Two days back, the Supreme Court of India (SC) ruled that lawmakers can not claim immunity from prosecution in bribery cases.
Key points of this judgment:
- In a significant move, the SC ruled that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) can not claim immunity from prosecution in cases of bribery for votes or speeches in the House.
- A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud unanimously overruled its 1998 judgment in PV Narasimha Rao vs State and opened the doors for law enforcement agencies to initiate prosecution against legislators in bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
The SC verdict in detail
- The CJI said in a landmark verdict that ‘Bribery is not protected by Parliamentary privileges. The corruption and bribery are destructive of the aspirations and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and create a polity that deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy. This verdict is significant in addressing the challenge of cash-for-votes trading and safeguarding the integrity of electoral mandates.
- This verdict overturns the 1998 judgment in PV Narasimha Rao case. In this case, an allegation had arisen that MPs of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) had accepted bribes to vote in favour of the government during a no-confidence motion in 1993. In this case, the SC had ruled with a 3:2 majority that MPs and MLAs were immune from prosecution in bribery cases as long as they fulfilled their end of the bargain.
- The SC also clarified that the principles enunciated by the verdict regarding legislative privileges will apply equally to elections to the Rajya Sabha and to appoint President and Vice-President. Accordingly, it overruled the observations in Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006), 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.
The Articles which deal with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs
- Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution deal with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs in the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies..
- Clause (2) of Article 105 has two branches- The first prescribes that a member of Parliament shall not be liable before any court in respect of “ anything said or any vote given” by them in Parliament or any committee thereof. The second branch prescribes that no person shall be liable before any court “in respect of” the publication by or under the authority of either house of Parliament of any report, paper, vote, or proceedings.
- These Articles grant them (MPS and MLAs) ‘freedom of speech and protect them from being prosecuted for their remarks in the House or any vote’ they may participate. The legal shield provided to lawmakers under these articles protects them from prosecution. These provisions were put in place to ensure that MPs and MLAs can work without fear of legal action being taken against them.
Seven-Judge Bench’s remark on the 1998 judgment
- The bench stated that the 1998 majority verdict has “wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy”.
- An individual member of the legislature can not 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.
- This judgment highlights that accepting a bribe is a separate crime that is not linked to the actions or words of lawmakers within the Parliament or the Assembly. Therefore, the immunity provided under Articles 105 and 194 does not extend to cases of bribery, as these do not pertain to the duties of lawmakers.
- According to the SC, ‘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.
- The court cautioned that granting such protection would create a group of individuals who enjoyed unregulated exemption from the law. It emphasized that corruption and bribery by legislators have the potential to undermine the functioning of Indian parliamentary democracy.
Offence of bribery for legislators
- The SC emphasized 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 bribe. Equally, the place where the bribe was offered or received did not matter.
- This verdict further asserted that the first explanation strengthens such an interpretation since it expressly states that the ‘obtaining, accepting, or attempting’ to obtain an undue advantage shall constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by a public servant has not been proper.
Indian history has been evidence of cash-for-vote scandals that created quite a big scandal, one was in 2008 as mentioned above, and the other was in 2015. In the 2015 scandal, the leaders of TDP in Telengana state were caught on video offering bribes to a nominated MLA in exchange for his vote in the 2015 elections of the Telengana Legislative Council.
In the end, Cash for a vote and other such bribery incidents are one of the bigger issues in parliamentary functions. This judgment of the SC to stop bribery is a welcome step, which will help in strengthening the democracy and parliamentary process.
Waiting for your feedback on this blog.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
6th March 2024