The Supreme Court of India has constituted a seven-judge bench to re-examine its 1998 verdict concerning the immunity of parliamentarians under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. This decision comes in light of the case involving MPs in the Narasimha Rao era.
In the Narasimha Rao judgment, Justice S C Agarwal had observed that if the interpretation supporting immunity under Article 105(2) for a bribe-taker were accepted, a member could be prosecuted for bribery if he accepts a bribe for not speaking or not voting on a matter before the House. However, the same member would be immune from prosecution if he accepts a bribe for speaking or voting in Parliament in a specific way.
Justice Agarwal’s judgment emphasized that the offense is complete upon the acceptance of the money or the agreement to accept money. The actual performance of the illegal promise by the receiver is not a determining factor. This perspective was not addressed in the majority’s judgment.
The bench stated,
“For these reasons, we’re of the view that the correctness of the view of the majority in Narasimha Rao shall be considered by a larger bench of seven-judge bench.”
Previously, on March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court had directed the formation of a larger Constitution bench to determine if a lawmaker can invoke the immunity clause to evade criminal prosecution for voting in Parliament or Assembly after allegedly accepting a bribe.
The court had underscored that this matter was of
“substantial public importance”
and encompassed an
“issue of wide ramifications.”
In 1998, a five-judge constitution bench, while deliberating on the PV Narasimha Rao versus CBI case, concluded that parliamentarians had immunity under the Constitution against criminal prosecution for any speech made and vote cast inside the House.
However, two judges from the bench opined that the protection under Article 105(2)/194(2) of the Constitution and the granted immunity should not extend to instances where bribery for making a speech or vote in a specific manner in the House is alleged.
The majority, while recognizing the gravity of the offense, believed that the wrongful act and the
“sense of indignation”
of the bench should not lead to a restrictive interpretation of the constitutional provisions. Such a narrow view might jeopardize the guarantee of effective parliamentary participation and debate.
In a bid to ensure clarity and uphold the sanctity of the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decision to set up a seven-judge bench is a significant step towards re-evaluating the boundaries of parliamentary immunity.
