Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling, Ends Immunity To MPs, MLAs In Bribery Cases; PM Modi Calls It A "Great Judgment"
In a landmark decision on Monday, a seven-judge Supreme Court bench reversed its 1998 ruling that shielded lawmakers from prosecution for accepting bribes in exchange for votes or speeches in the legislative chambers. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who led the bench, stressed that “corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life” and cannot hide behind the parliamentary privilege.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the big verdict by the Supreme Court. “Swagatam. A great judgment by the Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people”s faith in the system,” PM Modi said in a post on X.
The ruling, which was delivered unanimously by the bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra, established that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) will no longer enjoy immunity from prosecution for accepting bribes to influence their actions within Parliament or state legislatures.
Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasised that individual legislators cannot claim privilege to evade prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 for bribery- charges concerning their votes or speeches.
“Such a claim to immunity fails to fulfil the two-fold 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,” said the bench, adding corruption and bribery have wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy.
The bench clarified that Articles 105(2) and 194(2), which provide immunity for statements made or votes cast in Parliament or its committees, do not extend to acts of bribery.
“Bribery is not rendered immune under Articles 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194(2) because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast. The same principles apply to bribery in connection with the speech in the House or a committee,” said the bench.
On September 20 last year, the court agreed to revisit the 1998 judgment in the PV Narasimha Rao Vs State (CBI) case. This decision was prompted by its use in the case of Sita Soren, a former member of the Jharkhand assembly affiliated with the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM). Soren was accused of accepting a bribe from an independent candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections.
In 1998, a five-judge bench, by a 3-2 majority, ruled that MPs and MLAs who accepted bribes and performed legislative actions such as voting or raising questions in the House were immune from prosecution under the Constitution. However, this judgment protected lawmakers who honored their end of the bargain but did not extend the same protection to those who accepted bribes but did not fulfill their commitments.
The court”s decision in 1998 established that MPs who received bribes and participated in House proceedings couldn”t be prosecuted as they were shielded by Article 105(2) of the Constitution. However, this protection was deemed unavailable to an MP who accepted a bribe but refrained from voting or speaking. This distinction led to the prosecution clearance of then MP Ajit Singh, accused of accepting a bribe but abstaining from voting.
On October 5, 2023, a seven-judge bench reserved its verdict on the validity of the 1998 ruling. The Union government urged the bench to nullify the precedent set by the 1998 judgment, stressing that bribery occurring outside legislative chambers is prosecutable under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. They proposed the establishment of an in-house committee called “speech and vote watch” as an alternative to judicially mandated guidelines.
The government argued that the Narasimha Rao judgment should be deemed “per incuriam” (rendered in ignorance of a statute), as it failed to consider the statutory provisions of the PC Act. They emphasized that the bench should limit its ruling to disavowing the 1998 judgment”s precedent regarding lawmakers accepting bribes, without delving into the broader issue of immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing Sita Soren, opposed a review of the 1998 judgment, contending that constitutional privileges and immunities are essential safeguards against political persecution.
On the other hand, senior advocates PS Patwalia, who appeared in the matter as amicus curiae, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the intervenor in the case, and Ashwini Upadhyay supported the view that legislators should not enjoy immunity for accepting bribes.
