Supreme Court Overrules 1998 Narsimha Rao Judgment: MPs/MLAs Lose Immunity From Prosecution

The judgment on whether MPs/MLAs can claim the Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench pronounced immunity for bribe taken for votes/speeches in Parliament/Assemblies, On March 4.

The scope of legislative privileges under Articles 105(2) & 194(2) of the Constitution will be decided by the Bench.

Photo Credit: PTI

Supreme Court Overrules 1998 Narsimha Rao Judgment

"It is a unanimous decision," stated Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud regarding the ruling on whether MPs/MLAs can claim immunity for bribes taken for votes/speeches in Parliament/Assemblies.

Chandrachud added, "In the course of this judgment while analysing majority and minority decision of Narasimha Rao judgment, we disagree and overrule the judgment that parliamentarian can claim immunity... The judgment of the majority in Narsimha Rao which grants immunity to legislators has a grave danger and thus overruled."

As per the judgment, "An MP/MLA can't claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with the vote or speech in the legislative house." The Supreme Court further stated, "Corruption or bribery by a member of legislature erodes probity in public life," adding, "Accepting bribes itself constitutes the offence," ruled the seven-judge bench, as reported by The Mint.

Moreover, it was mentioned by the Supreme Court that giving any privilege unconnected to the functioning of Parliament or legislature will lead to creating a class that enjoys unchecked exemptions from the operation of the law of the land. The emphasis was laid by the seven-judge bench on the fact that parliamentary privileges are essentially related to the House collectively and necessary for its functioning.

The Supreme Court noted that corruption and bribery are destructive of the aspirations and deliberative ideals of the Constitution.

What was the case?

Supreme Court Verdict on Immunity for MPs and MLAs:

The verdict on whether MPs and MLAs enjoy immunity from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or cast a vote in the legislature is scheduled to be pronounced by the Supreme Court today.

Reserving the Judgement:

Having reserved its judgment on October 5, 2023, a verdict will be pronounced by a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud.

Argument and Deliberation:

During the arguments, the Centre had submitted that bribery can never be a subject matter of immunity, and a parliamentary privilege is not meant to place a lawmaker above the law. The judgement was reserved after two day-long arguments advanced by a battery of lawyers including the attorney general, the solicitor general, and amicus curiae P S Patwalia, who was assisting the court in the matter, as reported by NDTV.

Reconsidering Past Judgement:

The seven-judge bench is reconsidering the judgement delivered by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1998 in the JMM bribery case by which MPs and MLAs were granted immunity from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in the legislature.

Revisiting a 25-Year-Old Scandal:

The Supreme Court revisited the judgement 25 years after the JMM bribery scandal rocked the country.

Examining Immunity Grant:

The Supreme Court, in the course of the hearing, stated it would examine whether the immunity granted to lawmakers from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in Parliament and state legislatures extends to them even if criminality is attached to their actions, reported NDTV.

Acknowledgement of Importance:

The Supreme Court had on September 20, 2023, agreed to reconsider its judgment, acknowledging it as an important issue having a significant bearing on the "morality of polity".

Background of Previous Verdict:

In 1998, a five-judge constitution bench had, in its majority verdict delivered in the PV Narasimha Rao versus CBI case, held that parliamentarians have immunity against criminal prosecution for any speech made and the vote cast inside the House under Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) of the Constitution.

Reference to Past Case:

The issue came under the Supreme Court's lens again in 2019, when a bench headed by then-chief justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing an appeal filed by Sita Soren, JMM MLA from Jama and daughter-in-law of party chief Shibu Soren, who was an accused in the JMM bribery scandal.

Request for Revisitation:

The Justice Gogoi-led bench had referred to a five-judge bench the crucial question, noting it had "wide ramification" and was of "substantial public importance".

Background of the JMM Bribery Case:

Sita Soren was accused of taking bribes to vote for a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha election in 2012. She had contended that the constitutional provision granting lawmakers immunity from prosecution, which saw her father-in-law being let off the hook in the JMM bribery scandal, be applied to her.

Legal Proceedings:

She had moved the Supreme Court against the Jharkhand High Court order of February 17, 2014, refusing to quash the criminal case lodged against her. The three-judge bench had then said it would revisit the SC verdict in the sensational JMM bribery case involving Shibu Soren, a former Jharkhand chief minister and ex-union minister, and four other party MPs who had accepted bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion threatening the survival of the P V Narasimha Rao government in 1993, as per media reports.

The outcome of Previous Case:

The Narasimha Rao government, which was in a minority, survived the no-confidence vote with their support. The CBI registered a case against Soren and four other JMM Lok Sabha MPs but the Supreme Court quashed it citing immunity from prosecution they enjoyed under Article 105(2) of the Constitution.