MPs/ MLAs cannot claim immunity from prosecution for taking bribes for speech/ vote in the house: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) cannot claim any immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution when they are accused of taking bribes [Sita Soren v. Union of India]..Article 105(2) confers on Members of Parliament (MPs) immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee.Article 194(2) grants similar protection to Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs).A Constitution bench Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, PV Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra delivered the unanimous verdict this morning. The Court also overruled a contrary judgment rendered by it in 1998 in the case of PV Narasimha Rao v. State in which the Court had opined that legislators are immune from being prosecuted for taking bribes to vote a certain way in a legislative house. "The judgment of the majority in PV Narasimha Rao (supra), which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature who has allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or speaking has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary. democracy. There is a grave danger of this Court allowing an error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered," the Court opined..The Court explained that immunity is given to legislators under Articles 105 (2) and 194 (2) in respect of anything said or done in the parliament or a legislative assembly only if a two-fold test is satisfied.The two-fold test involves examining whether such action is (1) connected to the collective functioning of the legislative house and (2) the action has a functional relationship "to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator."These provisions are meant to sustain an environment that facilitates free deliberations. However, such an atmosphere would be vitiated if a member is bribed to deliver a speech or vote a certain way, the Court said. Therefore, the Court proceeded to hold that bribery is not protected by such parliamentary privilege."An individual member of the legislature cannot 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. Such a claim to immunity fails to fulfil the twofold test that the claim is tethered to the collective functioning of the House and that it is necessary to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator," the Court said. .The Court explained that the immunity conferred under Articles 105 and 194 is meant to help legislators say and vote freely Such action of vote or speech inside a legislative house is absolute.“This (speech or action without fear or favour) is exactly what is taken away when a member is induced to vote in a certain way not because of their belief or position on an issue but because of a bribe taken by the member. Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian Parliamentary democracy. It is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive and representative democracy,” the Court proceeded to explain. .The Court has also ruled that just the act of taking a bribe could expose the legislator to criminal charges."The offence of bribery is complete on the acceptance of the money or on the agreement to accept money being concluded. The offence is not contingent on the performance of the promise for which money is given or is agreed to be given," the judgment stated..The Court added that criminal courts are not excluded from hearing bribery cases against legislators, merely because the Speaker of the legislative house is empowered to deal with such cases as well. "Prosecution for bribery is not excluded from the jurisdiction of the criminal court merely because it may also be treated by the House as contempt or a breach of its privilege.".The Court also clarified that the immunities under Articles 105 (2) and 194 (2) of the Constitution (as interpreted by the Court today) would also apply equally to elections to the Rajya Sabha and elections to appoint the President and Vice-President of the country. .The verdict came on a case dealing with the question of whether the legal immunity enjoyed by legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution protects them from prosecution for taking bribes.The bench had reserved its judgment on October 5. .The issue before the Supreme Court arose from a plea filed by Sita Soren, sister-in-law of former Jharkhand Chief Minister (CM) Hemant Soren. Notably, Hemant Soren had recently stepped down after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a money laundering case against him. Meanwhile, Sita Soren was accused of taking a bribe to vote for a particular candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha Elections.A complaint was filed in 2012 with the Chief Election Commissioner of India seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the case. Sita Soren was charged with the offences of criminal conspiracy and bribery under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and for criminal misconduct by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.In 2014, while hearing her plea seeking quashing of the case, the Jharkhand High Court noted that Soren had not cast her vote for the person who had offered her the bribe. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court after Soren filed an appeal against the High Court's decision to dismiss her plea. .Earlier in 1998, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had held in PV Narasimha Rao v. State that Article 105(2) even protects MPs from facing bribery charges. A 3:2 majority had reasoned that 105(2) applies not only to voting but anything connected to voting including taking bribes that influenced the voting.Before the apex court, Soren had contended that the decision in PV Narsimha Rao should be interpreted broadly so that politicians can speak their minds without fearing legal action.The Supreme Court had on September 20 referred the matter to a seven-judge Constitution Bench to decide whether the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao needs to be reconsidered.During the hearings, Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani had suggested a functional test to determine immunity, saying that it could extend to speech or acts of voting needed to discharge the duty of a legislator without fear of consequences..The CJI had, at the time, stated that courts cannot question speeches or votes in parliament, and applying legal immunity only when a legislator is speaking, will make it very restrictive.CJI Chandrachud had orally observed that if a Parliamentarian makes a speech outside Parliament, there is no immunity, while also expressing his apprehensions against blanket immunity..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Central government. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran and advocate Vivek Singh appeared for Sita Soren.The Amicii Curiae were Senior Advocates PS Patwalia and Gaurav Agrawal.Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Vijay Hansaria and advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari appeared for the intervenors in the case..[Read Judgment]