Indian Supreme Court to Re-Examine Landmark 1998 Ruling on Parliamentary Immunity in Bribery Cases: Seven-Judge Bench to Deliberate
The Supreme Court of India has decided to re-examine its 1998 judgment concerning the immunity of lawmakers from prosecution for accepting bribes in exchange for speeches or votes in Parliament. The matter has been referred to a larger bench of seven judges, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who observed that the issue has
“significant bearing on the morality of polity.”
“We are of the considered view that the correctness of PV Narasimha Rao shall be reconsidered by a 7-judge bench,”
the court stated. The bench further elaborated that the purpose of Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) is
“to ensure that members of parliament and state legislatures are able to discharge duties in an atmosphere of freedom without fear of the consequences.”
The re-examination comes in the context of the JMM MPs bribery case, where MPs allegedly took bribes to vote in support of the Narasimha Rao Government in 1993. The bench noted that if the construction supporting immunity under Article 105(2) were accepted, a member could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe for not speaking or not voting but would enjoy immunity if the bribe was for speaking or voting in a specific manner.
Justice S.C. Agarwal had previously noted that the offense is complete with the
“acceptance of the money or agreement to accept money being concluded and is not dependent on performance of the illegal promise by the receiver.”
This aspect, the bench said, had not been dealt with in the majority judgment.
Attorney General R Venkatramani and Senior Advocate Raju Ramchandran, representing Sita Soren, argued that the facts of the present case did not require revisiting the Narasimha Rao case. Soren is facing prosecution on charges of bribery during the Rajya Sabha elections of 2012. The Jharkhand High Court had noted that Soren took money but did not cast her vote in favor of the payer, thus she could not claim immunity.
The court concluded that the matter was of
“substantial public importance”
and involved an
“issue of wide ramifications.”
The decision to re-examine the 1998 verdict comes more than two decades after the original judgment, which had granted parliamentarians immunity from criminal prosecution for any speech made and vote cast inside the House.
Case Counsel:
- For the Petitioner: Attorney General R Venkatramani and Senior Advocate Raju Ramchandran
- For the Respondent: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and other members of the bench.
