MP, MLAs Not Immune From Prosecution In Bribery Cases: Supreme Court’s Big Verdict

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) were not immune from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in the legislature. The court said that bribery is not protected by Parliamentary privileges. The court also said that MLA taking bribes to vote in Rajya Sabha elections can also be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). 

The court reasoned that the purpose and object for legislative privileges must be borne in mind. Privileges are for the house collectively. Articles 105 (2) or 194 (2) seek to create a fearless environment for the members of the house.

A seven-judge bench unanimously over-ruled previous Supreme Court ruling by a five-judge bench in PV Narasimha Rao case. The court ruled that the PV Narasimha judgment results in a paradoxical situation where a legislator, who accepts a bribe and votes accordingly is protected whereas a legislator, who despite taking a bribe votes independently is prosecuted.

A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra overtuned the 1998 verdict and ruled that bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105 or 194 because a member indulging in bribery indulges in a criminal act which is not essential for the function of casting a vote or giving a speech in the legislature.

The top court said that it does not depend on whether the vote or speech is given at a later time. The offence is complete when the legislator accepts a bribe.

“The offence of bribery is crystallised on the taking of illegal gratification,” the court said.

The question of immunity to lawmakers came under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny in 2019, when a bench headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea filed by Sita Soren, a Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MLA from Jama.

Sita Soren was accused of taking bribes to vote for a candidate in the Rajya Sabha polls in 2012. She challenged the Jharkhand high court verdict against her and moved to the top court arguing that she enjoys immunity from prosecution. Earlier, her father-in-law Shibu Soren enjoyed the perks of immunity to lawmakers when he was accused in the JMM bribery scam.

A five-judge bench of the apex court in 1998 gave a verdict in the JMM bribery case by which MPs and MLAs were given immunity from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in legislature.

What Was The PV Narasimha Rao Judgment SC Overturned?

In July 1993, PV Narasimha Rao’s government faced a no-confidence motion. The Congress governmet led by Rao manged to narrowly defeated by a margin of 14 votes.

Following this, a complaint was filed under the PCA, alleging that some Parliamentarians were bribed to vote against a no-confidence motion in favour of the Congress government.

The accused MPs said that they enjoyed immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution for any votes cast by them in Parliament and any actions associated with casting such votes. They further said that as MPs do not hold public office, so they cannot be brought under PCA.

In 1998, by a 3:2 majority a five-judge bench ruled that MPs are immune from prosecution not just for votes cast by them in Parliament, but also for any acts associated with the casting of such votes.