Quid pro (many) quos: A strange SC judgment on bribing MPs, MLAs finally gets overturned. But not all bribes are provable

A seven-judge Supreme Court constitution bench yesterday overturned a strange judgment delivered 26 years ago. In 1998, a verdict in PV Narasimha Rao vs State concluded that legislators accepting bribes to influence their performance in the House was protected by the Constitution’s articles on parliamentary privilege. This interpretation triggered discomfort among subsequent benches. Finally, SC has ruled that the Constitution doesn’t give a free pass to bribery.

Upside down | The 1998 judgment defied common sense. It said if a legislator accepted a bribe and acted according to its influence, immunity kicked in. However, if the legislator agreed to accept a bribe but eventually acted independently, it would trigger prosecution. Little wonder, many SC benches tried to tiptoe their way around this precedent.

Setting it straight | Here onwards, bribery will be treated as just that. There are no privileges granted by the Constitution to protect legislators who accept bribes. This is the highlight of SC’s judgment. It’s clear and there are no loopholes. SC said the offence of bribery is complete when the legislator accepts one. Once that step is taken, there are no privileges that can be invoked to escape prosecution.

Parliamentary privileges | The Constitution offers both MPs and MLAs special privileges to express themselves in the House. This freedom of expression is unrelated to a citizen’s fundamental right to expression. The purpose of parliamentary privileges is to enable elected representatives to carry out their functions effectively.

Two-step test | SC also laid out a two-step test to draw boundaries around parliamentary privileges claimed by individuals. One, it has to be linked to the collective functioning of the House. Two, it must have a functional relationship to the discharge of duties.

Elastic conscience | On these points there can be no disagreement. However, neither can the issue of bribery be viewed in black and white. SC said that when MLAs vote to select Rajya Sabha members they require protection to ensure it is exercised freely and without fear of legal persecution.

On paper, that’s fine. But RS elections are infamous for ‘conscience votes’. India’s track record suggests ‘conscience votes’ usually involve quid pro quo. But the quo is never something provable in courts. It just goes to show how fuzzy the subject is. In principle, SC did the right thing. Reality is another matter. But law needs to be based on principles.

END OF ARTICLE