In a landmark move, the Supreme Court has convened a seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, to reexamine the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment. This verdict had previously granted MPs and MLAs immunity from prosecution in bribery cases related to their speeches or votes in the house. The bench, which also includes Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra, will be the first of its kind to be live-streamed.
The 1998 judgment, by a 3:2 majority, held that members of the parliament or state legislatures were immune from prosecution in bribery cases surrounding any speech or vote in the house, based on the parliamentary privilege conferred by Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution. However, it was clarified that this privilege could only be claimed if the legislator upheld their end of the bribe agreement.
This verdict is now under scrutiny due to an appeal by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Sita Soren, who was accused of accepting a bribe for a 2012 Rajya Sabha vote. She claimed immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, but the Jharkhand High Court dismissed her plea, leading to the challenge in the Supreme Court.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta suggested narrowing the issue to an analysis of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, without revisiting Article 105. Chief Justice Chandrachud responded that the question of immunity would have to be discussed, given the majority view in the PV Narasimha Rao case.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran argued against overturning the PV Narasimha Rao judgment, emphasizing the importance of constitutional privileges and immunities. He stated,
“Independence of legislators from the crown, and in a democracy, a democratic executive, is a key consideration. A powerful executive – whatever the political party – is a fact of political life today in India, just as it is a fact that the law is misused.”
However, opposing views were presented by Senior Advocates PS Patwalia and Gopal Sankaranarayanan. They argued that the purpose of the Articles was to ensure freedom of dialogue and insulate the legislative process from external influence, not to protect individuals from criminal proceedings arising from a betrayal of the electorate’s trust.
Justice Narasimha highlighted the need to balance the constitutional intent with potential executive intervention. He questioned how the nexus would be established if a legislator neither casts a vote nor delivers a speech.
The case, which has significant implications for the democratic process and the rule of law in India, will continue on October 5.
